2016 (3) TMI 890 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund of amount paid under protest - Unjust Enrichment though the imported goods were used for the manufacturing of fertilizers - Import of 2 catalysts charges claiming benefit of Notification No. 66/94-Cus but denied by the Department - In urgency appellant cleared consignment by paying duty on imports under protest - Held that - the fertilizers manufactured by the respondent are under strict price control regime and the subsidy for the production cost is borne by the Central Govt., all stake holders are aware exemption was granted to such kind of import of fertilizers. Also the certificate produced by the respondent of a Chartered Engineer indicating that the incidence of duty has not been passed on is not contested by the Revenue. Therefore, the refund claim is not to be rejected. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
Refusal of refund claim by adjudicating authority, unjust enrichment, denial of benefit of exemption notification, validity of first appellate authority's decision.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the rejection of a refund claim by the adjudicating authority and the subsequent allowance of the appeal by the first appellate authority. The case involved an importer who filed a bill of entry for the import of catalysts charges claiming benefit under Notification No. 66/94-Cus. Despite the denial of the benefit by the assessing group, the importer cleared the consignment by paying duty under protest and later contested the issue. The main contention raised by the Revenue in the appeal was regarding unjust enrichment as the imported goods were used for manufacturing fertilizers, which could indirectly pass on costs to taxpayers. The Revenue relied on a judgment from the High Court of Bombay to support this argument.

Upon detailed consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal found that the issue revolved around the refund of an amount paid under protest by the importer due to the denial of the exemption notification by Customs authorities. The importer had imported catalysts charges, claimed the benefit of a specific notification, paid the differential customs duty under protest, and subsequently filed a refund claim. Both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority allowed the refund claim. The first appellate authority's findings highlighted that the subsidy granted by the government was unrelated to the payment or refund of customs duty, and the burden of manufacturing costs was not indirectly passed on to taxpayers. The Tribunal agreed with the first appellate authority's reasoning, emphasizing that the denial of the refund was unjust as the importer had a valid duty exemption certificate and had paid duty under protest.

The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, noting that the findings were legally sound and supported by the evidence presented. It highlighted that the fertilizers manufactured by the importer were under strict price control, and the subsidy for production costs was borne by the Central Government. The certificate from a Chartered Engineer provided by the importer, indicating that the duty incidence was not passed on, was also uncontested by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was correct, legal, and free from any defects. The appeal was deemed meritless and rejected accordingly.