2013 (2) TMI 147 - AT - Customs

Refund claim of SAD - Additional duty of customs (CVD) Imported goods were cleared under invoices of credit paying VAT - Notification No. 102/07-Customs dated 14.09.07 Period of limitation - Notification No. 93/08-Customs dated 01.08.08 Unjust enrichment Period of limitation Held that - Following the decision in case of AUDIOPLUS (2010 (11) TMI 361 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) that there is no bar of time limit as per the Notification No. 102/07- Customs. The only bar has come with effect from Notification No, 93/08- Customs. Therefore, any import prior to 01.08.08, there is no bar of time limit as applicable In favour of assessee Unjust Enrichment Held that - Appellants did not produce the required documents for their satisfaction that the appellants have not passed the burden of unjust enrichment Remand back to A.O.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of additional duty of customs denied by lower authorities - Barred by limitation - Unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellants imported pharmaceutical products and paid duty and additional duty of customs (CVD), clearing the goods under invoices of credit paying VAT. They filed a refund claim of CVD paid under Notification No. 102/07-Customs. The refund claims were detailed in a chart showing various transactions. The first refund claim was rejected as barred by limitation under Notification No. 93/08-Customs, requiring filing within one year. The remaining refund claims (S.Nos. 2 to 5) were rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment, as the appellants failed to provide documents proving that the burden was not passed on to customers.

Regarding the first contention, the Tribunal referred to previous cases such as Audioplus Vs. CC and Om Household Appliances Pvt, Ltd. Vs. CC, where it was held that there is no time limit bar as per Notification No. 102/07-Customs for imports prior to 01.08.08. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the refund claim for S.No. 1 was entitled on limitations and needed examination for unjust enrichment by the adjudicating authority. For the other refund claims, the authorities found that the appellants did not provide sufficient documents to prove the absence of unjust enrichment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the issue of unjust enrichment, emphasizing the need to determine if the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.