2015 (6) TMI 576 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Security deposit - Held that - The adjudicating authority has already sanctioned the refund but credited to the consumer welfare fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that bar of unjust enrichment not applicable for security deposits. By respectfully following the Hon ble High Court decision above, we hold that the appellants are eligible for refund of cash security deposit and there is no infirmity in the order of the LAA - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order in Appeal dated 19.01.2012 on the bar of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an Order in Appeal dated 19.01.2012 regarding the bar of unjust enrichment. The respondents were registered with customs for the import of capital goods under project import. The adjudicating authority sanctioned an amount deposited as cash security deposit, which was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue contended that the cash security deposit made by the respondent was akin to customs duty and the bar of unjust enrichment applied. The Ld. AR supported this argument with relevant case laws.

The Ld. Advocate for the respondents supported the findings of the impugned order, citing relevant judicial decisions. The Tribunal noted that the appellants were registered under project import, and the cash security deposit was made at the time of registration. The Board's circular stipulated the requirement of such a deposit. The Revenue argued that the deposit was equivalent to customs duty and unjust enrichment applied. However, the Tribunal found that the case laws cited by the Revenue were not directly relevant. The Tribunal referred to a High Court decision which dismissed a similar appeal by the Revenue, emphasizing that the cash security deposit did not fall under the bar of unjust enrichment.

The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions and relevant legal precedents, upheld the impugned order. It held that the appellants were eligible for a refund of the cash security deposit, as the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to security deposits. By following the High Court decision, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, providing consequential benefit to the appellants. The decision was pronounced in the open court, concluding the case.