2012 (8) TMI 694 - AT - Customs

Refund - refund claim was rejected only on the ground of limitation and the issue of bar of unjust enrichment was not being examined by the adjudicating authority Held that - Refund claims are within time - adjudicating authority has not examined the issue of unjust enrichment - matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against impugned order seeking stay of operation.
2. Provisional assessment of Bills of Entry and refund claims.
3. Barred refund claims due to limitation.
4. Divergent views on refund claims within one year from the date of payment of SAD.
5. Examination of the issue of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the impugned order and sought a stay. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal and stay application together.

2. The case involved Bills of Entry provisionally assessed by the respondent, who paid SAD @ 4% and later sold the imported goods within a year. They claimed a refund of the SAD paid. The adjudicating authority initially rejected the refund claim as premature, directing them to file when assessments are final. Subsequently, after a notification, the respondent refiled refund claims within the stipulated time. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, noting the conflicting views of the department. The Revenue challenged this decision.

3. Examining the case, the Tribunal referred to Circular No. 23/10-Cus., which clarified that even in provisional assessments, refund claims must be filed within one year from SAD payment. The respondent's claims were initially deemed premature but were found to be within the time limit. The rejection was solely on the basis of limitation, without considering unjust enrichment.

4. The Tribunal highlighted that the adjudicating authority failed to address the issue of unjust enrichment. Therefore, they remanded the matter back for a thorough examination within two months, emphasizing adherence to the law.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order regarding the timeliness of refund claims but directed a reevaluation by the adjudicating authority on the aspect of unjust enrichment. The appeal and stay application were disposed of accordingly.