9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 1098 - AT - CustomsUnjust enrichment - refund - appellant had filed bills of entries on 31-1-2006, which were provisionally assessed on the value of USD 415 PMT of the imported goods. On the very same day, vide Notification No. 7/2005-Cus., (N.T.) dated. 31-1-2006, the tariff value was reduced from USD 415 to USD 412 PMT. The bills of entries were finally assessed on the very same day i.e. 31-1-2006 giving the benefit of the notification to the appellant. Appellant filed refund claims on 30-6-2006 as per the provisions i.e. provisions of Section 27 read with Section 27 read with Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - Claim for refund made by the appellant had to be decided according to the law laid down in case of TVS Suzuki Ltd. 2003 (8) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA as relying on Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) , provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules were parimateria to the provisions of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 as regards the provisional assessment and finalization thereof. order is not correct and set aside, order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any.
Issues:
1. Provisional assessment of bills of entries under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Application of unjust enrichment clause in refund claims. 3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and case laws. Issue 1: Provisional Assessment of Bills of Entries The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal No. 13/2009 V-II Cus., dated. 9-6-2009, concerning the clearance of Crude Palm Oil at a concessional rate of duty. The appellant filed two Bills of Entries on 31-1-2006 for clearance at a tariff value of USD 415 PMT. Subsequently, a notification reduced the tariff value to USD 412 PMT on the same day. The Asst. Commissioner provisionally assessed the bills, and upon filing refund claims, excess duty was refunded. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed re-adjudication considering the aspect of unjust enrichment. The Asst. Commissioner, in remand, ordered recovery of the refunded amount citing lack of evidence to rebut unjust enrichment. The appellant appealed, arguing that the refund claims were filed within the stipulated time under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 2: Application of Unjust Enrichment Clause The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refund of duty is governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which requires scrutinizing refund claims in terms of unjust enrichment. Referring to the case of UOI v. Solar Pesticides, it was concluded that the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers. The appellant's consultant argued that the judgment in the case of CCE v. TVS Suzuki Ltd. should apply. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the burden on the appellant to show non-passing of duty incidence to customers. Issue 3: Interpretation of Legal Provisions and Case Laws The appellant contended that the clause of unjust enrichment was inserted in Section 18 of the Customs Act w.e.f 13-7-2006, after the finalization of bills of entries and filing of refund claims. Citing the TVS Suzuki Ltd. case, it was argued that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal found that the impugned order did not consider the issue correctly, as the relevant provisions were not in effect during the transactions in question. Relying on the TVS Suzuki Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, highlighting the need for correct application of legal provisions and case laws in such matters. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.
|
