2015 (12) TMI 58 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that - On the basis of all the records produced by the appellant before us such as balance sheet, ledgers, general vouchers and account for plant and machinery etc., it is very clear that the appellant has accounted for the amount of Revenue deposit under the head of loans and advances , which can also be seen from bifurcation of the total amount shown in the balance sheet. From this it is clear that the amount of Revenue deposit has not been booked by the appellant as expenditure in the profit and loss account. - appellant has not claimed any depreciation on the amount of revenue deposit as same was not capitalized alongwith the value of plant and machinery. As regard inconsistency between two C.A. certificate pointed out by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) and made sole ground for rejection of the appellant s claim, we are of the view that once it is established from the books of account of the appellant that the amount of Revenue deposit has been undisputedly shown as deposit with government authorities under the head of loans and advances in the balance sheet it is sufficient to conclude that the incidence of said revenue deposit has not been passed on to any other person. - appellant, on the basis of record produced before, made us satisfied that incidence of revenue deposit has not been passed on to any other person - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Unjust enrichment in the case of refund of Revenue deposit.
2. Consistency between two C.A. Certificates.
3. Claim of depreciation on imported plant and machinery.
4. Rejection of appeal by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. Unjust Enrichment: The case involved the refund claim of a Revenue deposit amounting to Rs. 96,42,224. The appellant contended that the amount was shown as recoverable in their financial records, including balance sheets and ledgers. The original authority, however, credited the refund to the consumer welfare fund citing unjust enrichment. The dispute centered around whether the burden of the refund had been passed on to consumers indirectly. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had adequately demonstrated through their books of accounts that the incidence of the Revenue deposit had not been passed on to any other person. The Tribunal emphasized that the books of accounts, audited and consistent, were conclusive proof in determining unjust enrichment. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision considering the books of accounts.

2. Consistency Between C.A. Certificates: The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appellant's claim based on inconsistencies between two C.A. Certificates issued by different firms. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had consistently accounted for the Revenue deposit as a loan and advance in their balance sheet, supported by detailed records such as ledgers and vouchers. The Tribunal held that the discrepancy in the C.A. certificates was an apparent error and that the books of accounts provided sufficient evidence to establish that the incidence of the Revenue deposit had not been passed on.

3. Claim of Depreciation: The appellant had claimed that they did not claim depreciation on the imported plant and machinery for which the Revenue deposit was made. They argued that after booking the purchase of the machinery, the amount of the Revenue deposit was debited from the machinery account and shown under current assets as recoverable. The Tribunal reviewed the ledger accounts and found that the appellant had not capitalized the Revenue deposit along with the machinery value, indicating that no depreciation was claimed on the deposit amount.

4. Rejection of Appeal: The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appellant's claim primarily due to the inconsistency in the C.A. Certificates. However, the Tribunal, after considering all submissions and records, concluded that the appellant had sufficiently demonstrated through their books of accounts that the incidence of the Revenue deposit had not been passed on. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand to the original authority for a fresh decision based on the books of accounts submitted by the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal principles involved in the case.

← Previous Next →