2016 (3) TMI 337 - AT - Customs

Eligibility of Refund claim - Unjust Enrichment on the basis of Balance-sheet & C.A. certificate - Held that - the amount has been shown as reimbursible in the balance-sheet which is certified by the C.A. Also it is demonstrable that as per the calculation given in C.A certificate, wherein from the sale consideration, the appellant have cut the amount of excess duty recovered, after recovery of cost as per the original declaration filed and duty after reducing the normal trade profit. Also the refund claim has been reduced by the above amount. So, the certificate of C.A. which is supported by other corroborative evidence like balance-sheet and calculation of amount etc. cannot be brushed aside and looks to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, the appellant is eligible for refund amount with interest. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal rejecting refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant disputed the enhanced value of imported goods, leading to additional customs duty. After rounds of litigation, the Tribunal observed the lack of consideration of unjust enrichment based on financial documents. The Chartered Accountant's Certificate revealed stock transfers and sales, indicating the duty incidence passed on to buyers. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim lacked merit due to the sales at higher prices than import costs.

The appellant argued against unjust enrichment, presenting calculations showing excess duty recovery from sales. The appellant claimed the amount as recoverable in the balance sheet, not collected from buyers, and voluntarily reduced the apparent recovery amount. The appellant contended that the Commissioner erred in invoking unjust enrichment based on higher selling prices compared to import costs.

The Assistant Commissioner supported the impugned order, emphasizing the appellant's failure to produce documents connecting sales bills with imported goods. Citing relevant case laws, the Assistant Commissioner argued that the burden of unjust enrichment was not discharged by the appellant.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts, noting the presence of sale invoices and the C.A. certificate supporting stock transfers and sales. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's conclusion on unjust enrichment erroneous, considering the reimbursible amount in the balance sheet. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's calculations, certified by the C.A., and directed the refund of the excess duty paid.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the appellant eligible for a refund of the disputed amount. The adjudicating authority was instructed to refund the sum with interest within 45 days of the order.