2011 (8) TMI 318 - AT - Customs

Eligibility to refund claim - Duty paid under protest - Unjust enrichment - Import of excess quantity after removal of the quantity mentioned in the bill of entry - Appellant was allowed to lift the remaining cargo on payment of duty,which they paid under protest and accordingly clearance was allowed - Subsequently, the appellant filed refund claim vide their application dated 16.10.1999 claiming refund of the excess amount paid - As per facts, the appellant has not produced any convincing evidence that the incidence of duty in question has not been passed on as the goods being under APM to show from their books of accounts that the amount paid as duty was not charged as expenditure and the same is retained as amount receivable from customs - At no point of time the appellant produced their financial documents or a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant showing the incidence of duty - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim based on excess duty payment; Unjust enrichment; Compliance with legal provisions for refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim by M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Company Limited (GNVFC) for excess duty payment on imported goods. The original authority sanctioned the refund claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the department's appeal, leading to further proceedings in CESTAT. The Commissioner observed a lack of evidence supporting GNVFC's claim, contrasting it with a previous judgment based on documentary evidence.

2. The Commissioner rejected GNVFC's arguments that the amount should be considered a deposit, emphasizing the absence of verifiable evidence against unjust enrichment. He highlighted the importance of supporting arguments with evidence and law, stating that the presumption of unjust enrichment in this case remained unrefuted.

3. During the hearing, GNVFC's advocate argued that the refunded amount, previously paid and recovered by Revenue with interest, constituted a pre-deposit. He cited relevant legal decisions to support the argument, contending that no Chartered Accountant certificate was necessary when the final product price was government-controlled.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the case details and concluded that the cited legal precedents did not directly apply. It dismissed the argument that unjust enrichment did not apply when the maximum retail price was statutorily fixed, noting a discrepancy with the facts of the present case.

5. The JDR refuted GNVFC's arguments, referencing a Supreme Court case to explain the concept of passing on the duty burden. The Court clarified that passing on duty indirectly also falls within the ambit of unjust enrichment, barring refund claims where duty burden is transferred to another person.

6. Further discussion delved into the interpretation of relevant sections of the Customs Act, emphasizing the burden on the claimant to prove that duty incidence was not passed on to another person. Failure to establish this crucial point rendered GNVFC's refund claim unsustainable, leading to rejection and potential credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

7. The Tribunal highlighted GNVFC's failure to provide convincing evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on, as required by legal provisions. Without financial documents or a Chartered Accountant certificate demonstrating this, the refund claim lacked merit and was subject to rejection, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of GNVFC's appeal, emphasizing the necessity of complying with legal provisions to substantiate refund claims and establish the non-passing on of duty burden to another party. The judgment reiterated the importance of evidence and compliance in refund proceedings, ultimately denying GNVFC's claim.