2008 (7) TMI 156 - HC - Customs

Whether when the matter is covered by Section 9A of CTA 1975 it being a self-contained provision the doctrine of unjust enrichment doesn t apply - SC in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Limited V. CCEC held that even where the provisions of S. 11B do not apply the doctrine of unjust enrichment can apply and therefore merely because the matter is covered by S. 9A operation of doctrine of unjust enrichment may not be excluded tribunal is directed to decide the issue in view of above decision

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal based on application of Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act and doctrine of unjust enrichment. Relevance of chartered accountant certificate as evidence in the case.

Analysis:
The High Court considered an appeal challenging the order of the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28-5-2007. The tribunal's decision was based on two main arguments. Firstly, it was contended that since the matter falls under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply. Secondly, the relevance of a chartered accountant certificate submitted by the respondent to support their claim of no unjust enrichment was questioned. The tribunal, relying on a previous Larger Bench judgment, held that due to Section 9A, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply. However, the appellant argued that despite sufficient evidence provided by the respondent, the tribunal did not consider it.

The High Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case, where it was held that even if the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act do not apply, the doctrine of unjust enrichment can still be relevant. Therefore, the mere presence of Section 9A does not automatically exclude the doctrine of unjust enrichment. In light of this Supreme Court judgment, the High Court concluded that the tribunal's order could not be upheld. The matter was remanded back to the tribunal for reconsideration on both the issues raised during the appeal. The tribunal was directed to assess whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable in the case and to review if the respondent has provided enough evidence to demonstrate the absence of unjust enrichment.

Ultimately, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the tribunal for fresh consideration. The customs appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed on either party.