2017 (10) TMI 1282 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess duty paid - denial on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that - the rejection of chartered accountant certificate by the lower authorities seems to be erroneous as chartered accountant has clearly stated that the amount of 1,34,894/- has been shown as receivable in the year 2015-2016 due to finalization and that the said amount has not been recovered by the appellant from any person - refund allowed in cash - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad was against the rejection of a refund claim of ?1,34,894 by the lower authorities, which was held as refundable but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment concerns. The appellant had initially filed a refund claim for ?5,20,559 for excess payment of customs duty due to finalization of provisional assessments. The lower authorities rejected the refund based on the grounds that the amount was shown as receivables in a subsequent financial year and the chartered accountant certificate was not accepted.

The Tribunal found errors in the lower authorities' decision for multiple reasons. Firstly, it was acknowledged that the appellant was eligible for the refund as it was paid in excess during provisional assessments. Secondly, the finalization of assessment occurred in the financial year 2015-2016, allowing the appellant to demonstrate that the amount was receivable from the customs department. The rejection of the chartered accountant certificate was deemed erroneous as it clearly stated that the amount was shown as receivable in the relevant year due to finalization and not recovered from any person. Additionally, the statutory auditors confirmed in their reports for the year 2015-2016 that the amount was receivable from the customs department and related to the provisional assessed bills of entries.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the lower authorities incorrectly concluded that the amount needed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The impugned orders were deemed unsustainable, and the Tribunal directed the lower authorities to refund the said amount in cash to the appellant. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the decision was in favor of the appellant.