2015 (1) TMI 114 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - SAD - Notification 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007 - Unjust enrichment - declaration on the face of Invoice - Held that - the invoice clearly shows that no Special Additional Duty is available as credit to the buyers of the goods. The appellant is a trader and not registered with the Central Excise department. Therefore, he cannot issue Cenvatable invoice to their buyers. Further, the claim of the appellant has been supported by a certificate issued by a C.A. certifying that SAD amount has been incurred by the appellant and has not been passed on to any customer and the said amount has been accounted in the balance sheet as Receivable from the department. When these evidences are available on records, duty incidence cannot be passed on to the buyers. Therefore, I hold that the appellant has passed on the burden of unjust enrichment and the appellant is entitled for refund claim. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for 4% SAD paid at the time of importation.

Analysis:
The appellant imported glass beads and paid SAD, subsequently selling the goods with VAT. The claim for refund was rejected due to alleged failure to pass on the burden of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal examined the invoice and found no SAD credit available to buyers, noting the appellant's status as a non-Cenvatable trader. A certificate from a C.A. confirmed the appellant's non-passing on of SAD to customers, with the amount accounted as 'Receivable'. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal held that the appellant had indeed passed on the unjust enrichment burden, entitling them to the refund claim. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed with any consequential relief.

This judgment delves into the intricacies of unjust enrichment in the context of a refund claim for SAD. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence, including the invoice and the C.A. certificate, to determine whether the burden had been passed on to buyers. The appellant's status as a non-Cenvatable trader played a crucial role in the analysis, highlighting the limitations on issuing Cenvatable invoices. The Tribunal's decision hinged on the presence of concrete evidence demonstrating the non-passing on of SAD, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation in such cases. By overturning the rejection of the refund claim, the Tribunal underscored the significance of meeting the burden of unjust enrichment to qualify for a refund in such scenarios.

In conclusion, the judgment showcases a meticulous assessment of the refund claim for SAD, emphasizing the need for clear evidence to establish the non-passing on of the duty burden. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal underscores the importance of meeting the requirements for unjust enrichment to secure a refund in cases involving indirect taxes like SAD. The detailed analysis provided by the Tribunal serves as a valuable precedent for similar cases involving refund claims and unjust enrichment issues in the realm of indirect taxation.