2015 (12) TMI 655 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess duty paid - whether the refund claim filed by the assessee in terms of the Tribunal s order would be hit by the principles of unjust enrichment or not - Held that - Admittedly the appellants have given a Chartered Accountant certificate indicating that duty element has not been received by them from their buyers. As per the majority order of the Tribunal in the case of Business Overseas Corporation Vs. CCE(Import & General), New Delhi 2014 (11) TMI 528 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) , it was observed that the production of a Chartered Accountant certificate shifts the burden to the Revenue to prove recovery of extra duty collected from the customers by producing positive evidence. As the Revenue failed to advance any evidence to rebut the Chartered Accountant certificate, the allegation of unjust enrichment cannot be upheld. Similarly in the case of Deepak Internationa Vs. CC&ST, Kanpur 2014 (11) TMI 233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , it was observed that Chartered Accountant certificate certifying extra duty paid not recovered from buyers to be given due evidentiary value especially when the said extra duty reflected in balance sheet as loan and advances recoverable from the Revenue. The appellants have taken a categorical stand in the present proceedings that the adjudicating authority examined the balance sheet of the year 2000-2001 whereas the importation was made in the month of March 2001 and it was reflected in the next financial year, which stands taken into account by the Chartered Accountant. Appellants have produced sales invoices indicating that the sales were made against cash and no excess duty was recovered by them. The adjudicating authority has not taken into consideration the said invoices merely on the sole ground that the buyers address is not given. Admittedly buyers names are there and mere absence of the addresses from the sales invoices cannot be adopted as a reason to reject the said evidence. - denial of the refund, which has arisen as a consequence of prolonged litigation by the appellant and the ultimate order of the Tribunal in their favour, on the ground of unjust enrichment is not justified. We accordingly set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant imported bearings under a declared value, which was later enhanced by the authorities, resulting in a differential excise duty. The appellant filed a refund claim after the CESTAT set aside the earlier orders, but it was rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The main issue in the appeal was whether the refund claim would be impacted by unjust enrichment principles.

The appellant submitted various documents, including a Chartered Accountant certificate, to support their claim that there was no unjust enrichment. However, the authorities found the certificate insufficient and observed discrepancies in the balance sheet and sales invoices. The authorities concluded that the burden of duty incidence had likely been passed on to consumers, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.

In response, the appellants argued that the Chartered Accountant certificate should be considered binding, and they had provided all relevant sales invoices, even though buyer addresses were missing. The majority order of the Tribunal emphasized the significance of the Chartered Accountant certificate in shifting the burden to the Revenue to prove unjust enrichment. The Tribunal also cited previous cases where such certificates were deemed credible evidence.

The Tribunal found that the Chartered Accountant certificate, along with the sales invoices indicating no excess duty recovery, were sufficient evidence to show that the duty amounts had not been collected from customers. The Tribunal criticized the authorities for disregarding the evidence based on technicalities like missing buyer addresses on invoices. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the refund denial based on unjust enrichment, considering the prolonged litigation and the Tribunal's earlier decision in favor of the appellant.