2016 (5) TMI 831 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Appellant could not establish that the imported goods have not been exported - Import of glass motifs - Exemption claimed under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. dated 1.3.2001 - Held that - it is an undisputed fact from the books of accounts of the appellant that the entire imported goods were shown as purchase in the books of accounts of the appellant against which their 100% clearance is for export. There is no contrary evidence adduced by the department that any of the quantity of imported goods cleared in the domestic market. Therefore, it can be conveniently concluded that all the goods imported by the appellant were exported, as nothing was cleared in the domestic market. Whether refund claim is liable to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund - Unjust enrichment - Held that - the books of account of the appellant shows that the entire income of the appellant during the relevant period is towards the export of the goods and there is no sale in the domestic market. Therefore, even without going to one to one co-relation, it is established that the incidence of duty paid by the appellant was not passed on to any other person in India. It is settled position of law that in case of export of goods, unjust enrichment is not applicable. Therefore, refund is not liable to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues involved:
- Denial of exemption notification on imported goods
- Rejection of refund claim based on unjust enrichment
- Dispute over whether imported goods were used in export goods
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim

Analysis:
1. Denial of exemption notification on imported goods:
The case involved the appellant importing glass motifs and claiming exemption under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. The assessing officer denied the exemption, leading the appellant to pay the duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially allowed the appeal, but subsequent proceedings resulted in the rejection of the refund claim, primarily on the grounds of unjust enrichment.

2. Rejection of refund claim based on unjust enrichment:
The core issue revolved around whether the appellant could establish that the imported goods were subsequently exported, thus justifying the refund claim. The department contended that the appellant failed to show a direct correlation between the imported and exported goods, suggesting that the Customs duty paid had not been passed on to another party.

3. Dispute over whether imported goods were used in export goods:
The appellant submitted various documents, including a Chartered Accountant certificate and a correlation chart between imported and exported goods, to demonstrate that all imported items were used in export goods. The appellant argued that since no goods were cleared for home consumption, it could be inferred that the imported goods were indeed used in exports. The department, however, maintained that the appellant did not establish a one-to-one correlation between the imported and exported goods.

4. Appeal against rejection of refund claim:
After multiple rounds of appeals and remands, the Tribunal ultimately found serious errors in the adjudication order rejecting the refund claim. The Tribunal noted that the earlier sanctioning of the refund and its crediting into the Consumer Welfare Fund on unjust enrichment grounds should have been conclusive. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence, including accounting records, to prove that all imported goods were used in exports, thus making unjust enrichment inapplicable.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal overturned the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and directing the refund to be granted. The decision highlighted the importance of the appellant's documentation and accounting records in establishing the eligibility for the refund and refuted the department's arguments regarding unjust enrichment.