2014 (2) TMI 729 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Assessments made on the bills of entry were not challenged by the appellant - Unjust enrichment - Held that - Once an Order of Assessment is passed the duty would be payable as per that order. Unless that order of assessment has been reviewed under Section 28 and/or modified in an Appeal that Order stands. So long as the Order of Assessment stands the duty would be payable as per that Order of Assessment. A refund claim is not an Appeal proceeding. The Officer considering a refund claim cannot sit in Appeal over an assessment made by a competent Officer. The Officer considering the refund claim cannot also review an assessment order - there is no evidence brought on record that assessments made on the bills of entry of the appellant were contested by filing appeals before the appropriate appellate authority, or that appellant asked for any appellate order on the assessments made on the bills of entry - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to assessments made on bills of entry before filing refund of Customs duty.
2. Application of unjust enrichment when final price of goods is fixed by the Government.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant contested the rejection of 17 refund claims by the adjudicating authority, arguing that challenging assessments on each bill of entry was not necessary when the issue had been decided in their favor by higher judicial forums. The appellant cited various case laws to support their argument. However, the Revenue emphasized that assessments were not contested by the appellant, relying on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal noted that the Apex Court had held that duty is payable as per the assessment order until modified or reviewed, and a refund claim cannot be made without challenging the assessment. Since there was no evidence of the assessments being contested, the appellant's argument was rejected.

Issue 2:
Regarding unjust enrichment, the appellant argued that it did not apply when the final price of goods was fixed by the Government, citing relevant case laws. The Revenue, citing more case laws, contended that unjust enrichment applied in the present case. The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting judgments but ultimately relied on a previous order specifically favoring the appellant, stating that unjust enrichment did not apply when maximum prices were controlled under the Fertilizer Price Control Order. Consequently, the appeals were rejected based on the observations made.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claims, emphasizing the necessity of challenging assessments before filing refund claims and clarifying the application of unjust enrichment in cases where final prices are controlled by the Government. The judgment was pronounced on 17.02.2014 by Mr. H.K. Thakur.