2017 (11) TMI 1702 - HC - Customs

Refund claim - import of Capital Goods - duty paid under protest - Section 27 of the Customs Act - case of Revenue is that the respondent did not discharge his burden of proving that the incidents of duty was not passed on to the consumers - Held that - The burden of proof was discharged by the respondent by producing certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant which was not considered by either of the lower authorities - Tribunal was only following judgment of the Madras High Court in CC, Chennai v. Venkataeswara Hospitals 2009 (4) TMI 925 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , which took the view that the concept of unjust enrichment would not be applicable to the import of capital goods. The findings of the Tribunal are not vitiated by any illegality for interference - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under different headings for duty calculation, Burden of proof regarding passing on of duty incidents to consumers, Application of the concept of unjust enrichment to import of capital goods.

Classification of imported goods under different headings for duty calculation:
The appeal involved a dispute over the classification of Operation Theatre Lamps for duty calculation purposes. The respondent classified the lamps under CTH 9018.19, while the Department classified them under CTH 8539.29, resulting in different duty rates. The respondent paid the duty under protest, and the appeal was decided in their favor. However, the refund was credited to the Welfare Fund under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal reversed the order dismissing the appeal, citing the respondent's burden of proof regarding duty incidents not being passed on to consumers. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the burden of proof was discharged by the respondent through a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant, which was not considered by lower authorities. The Tribunal's decision was supported by a judgment of the Madras High Court, which held that the concept of unjust enrichment did not apply to the import of capital goods. The High Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's findings and dismissed the appeal.

Burden of proof regarding passing on of duty incidents to consumers:
The Revenue contended that the respondent failed to prove that the duty incidents were not passed on to consumers. However, the High Court observed that the respondent had discharged the burden of proof by producing a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, which was not considered by lower authorities. The Tribunal's decision, based on this evidence and following a judgment of the Madras High Court, was found to be legally sound, as it held that the concept of unjust enrichment did not apply to the import of capital goods. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, as it found no grounds for interference.

Application of the concept of unjust enrichment to import of capital goods:
The Tribunal's decision, which reversed the order crediting the refund to the Welfare Fund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, was based on the application of the concept of unjust enrichment to the import of capital goods. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, citing a judgment of the Madras High Court that supported the view that unjust enrichment did not apply to such imports. The High Court found the Tribunal's decision legally sound and upheld it, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.