2013 (12) TMI 1244 - AT - Customs

Refund claim unjust enrichment Held that - adjustment of amount paid on provisional assessment, doctrine of unjust enrichment is not attracted - Chartered Accountant is an expert who has knowledge and training of the accounting system and his certificate could not be brushed aside summarily as is being sought to - this is not a case where doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable. The appellant is entitled for the refund sanctioned - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order, Application for refund of duty amount, Doctrine of unjust enrichment

Rectification of Mistake in Tribunal's Final Order:
The case involves an application for the rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order. The appellant sought rectification based on the Order-in-Appeal No. 26/Commr(A)/JMN/2011 and the refund amount due to them. The Tribunal allowed the rectification, modifying the Final Order to address the appellant's contentions regarding the refund amount.

Application for Refund of Duty Amount:
The appellant, a shipping agent, filed an appeal seeking a refund of duty amount after seeking conversion of a vessel from foreign run to coastal run. The duty paid by the appellant was finalized, leading to an amount due for refund. However, the original adjudicating authority ordered the refund amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:
The appellant contended that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply to their case, as they had paid a notional duty deposit at the rate of 110% of the duty after provisional assessment. They cited relevant Board circulars and submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate to support their claim. The Tribunal referred to past judgments and held that in cases where the duty deposited was on an estimation basis and found to be less than the final duty liability, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. Citing precedents and expert opinions, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund as the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable in this case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order, the application for a refund of duty amount, and the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in the context of the appellant's case.