2014 (11) TMI 234 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that - If it is observed that bar of unjust enrichment is applicable then also the appellant has discharged their burden to prove that duty incidence has not been passed on the buyer as they have been able to produce Chartered Accountants certificate to that effect and shown the revenue deposit as receivable from the customs. Therefore, without going into the merits, I hold that they have passed the bar of unjust enrichment. Therefore, they are entitled for refund claim - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection of revenue deposit paid at the time of clearance of imported goods, unjust enrichment applicability, interpretation of Public Notice dated 29.11.1991, burden of proof on duty not passed to buyer.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim for the revenue deposit paid during the clearance of imported goods due to a valuation dispute. The Adjudicating Authority initially allowed the refund claim based on the Public Notice dated 29.11.1991, which permitted refunds related to revenue deposits or fines and penalties not considered as duty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim citing unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that the revenue deposit was made to secure the revenue's interest and did not constitute duty, referencing a similar case precedent. They contended that they proved no duty incidence passed on to the buyer with a Chartered Accountant's certificate and showing the revenue deposit as receivable from customs, which the Commissioner (Appeals) allegedly overlooked.

The appellant's counsel emphasized that the Public Notice provisions should apply to the Commissioner (Appeals) and that unjust enrichment did not apply as the revenue deposit was not part of the duty. The Tribunal, without delving into the merits, held that the burden of proving no duty incidence passed to the buyer was met by the appellant through the Chartered Accountant's certificate and evidence of the revenue deposit as receivable from customs. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the refund claim with consequential relief and directing the Adjudicating Authority to implement the decision promptly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment revolved around the interpretation of the Public Notice, the application of unjust enrichment, and the burden of proof regarding the passing of duty incidence to the buyer. The decision favored the appellant, emphasizing the non-dutiable nature of the revenue deposit and the appellant's successful demonstration of no passing of duty incidence, leading to the allowance of the refund claim.