Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (10) TMI 1107 - AT - Customs


Issues:
- Appeal against order sanctioning refund of duty
- Application of doctrine of unjust enrichment

Analysis:
1. Appeal against order sanctioning refund of duty:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal upholding the refund of duty to the respondent. The case involved the import of Washing and Siliconizing Machines under Project Import, which led to a demand for payment of differential duty. The respondent challenged this demand, and the lower adjudicating authority sanctioned a refund of Rs.13,09,506/-, which was later upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue contested this decision, arguing that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not properly applied. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) considered the facts and rejected the Revenue's appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Application of doctrine of unjust enrichment:
The main contention of the Revenue was related to the balance sheet discrepancies for the years 2001 and 2003. They argued that the lower authorities did not adequately examine the details of the balance sheets to determine if the refund amount was covered under the receivable amounts. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the duty amount was recovered by the department through encashing a bank guarantee and should not be subject to unjust enrichment. The Tribunal noted that the amount in question was realized through the bank guarantee and that the refund was not disputed by either party. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had considered the relevant aspects, and the department failed to provide evidence to show that the refund amount was not covered under the receivable amounts. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, stating that the department did not take any steps to establish their claim and that there was no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as devoid of merits and upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the refund of duty. The counter styled as Cross Objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates