2016 (8) TMI 876 - AT - Customs

Restoration of appeal - appeal returned on ground of insufficient documents on limitation aspect without going into the merits of the case - Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 Notification No.102/2007-Cus., dt. 14-09-2007 - refund of SAD principles of unjust enrichment Held that - the Adjudicating authority observed in the adjudicating proceedings, that the respondent-assessee has fulfilled all the conditions of Notification No.102/2007-Cus., dt. 14-09-2007 read with Board s Circular No.6/2008 dt. 28.4.2008 and 16/2008-Cus. and accordingly, sanctioned refunds of 4% Additional Customs duty, which was paid under various TR-6 challans in respect of bills of entry mentioned in the OIO. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs(Refunds) has discussed the issue in details and has also given detailed findings on the entire matter while sanctioning the 4% SAD Refund. No infirmity in the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) vide OIO No.12529/2010 dt. 3.8.2010 appeal rejected decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue against order passed by first appellate authority.
2. Commissioner (Appeals) not going into merits of the case.
3. Insufficiency of documents on limitation aspect.
4. Interpretation of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Refund sanctioning authority's decision.
6. Unjust enrichment principle in refund cases.
7. Compliance with Notification No.102/2007-Cus. and Circular No.6/2008.
8. Asst. Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) decision upheld.
9. Commissioner (Appeals) returning appeal to department.
10. Scrutinizing documentary evidence to overcome limitation aspect.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the first appellate authority where the Commissioner (Appeals) did not delve into the merits of the case but returned the appeal to the department citing insufficient documents on the limitation aspect. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, and gave directions without legal sanction under the Customs Act.

2. The respondent's counsel reiterated that all necessary invoices were submitted before the lower authorities, and the refund sanctioning authority had thoroughly reviewed the documents before sanctioning the refund. The counsel relied on Circular No. 6/2008, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment and the need for certification from a statutory auditor/Chartered Accountant to prove that the burden of duty had not been passed on.

3. Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the appeal records, it was found that the respondent had fulfilled the conditions of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. and relevant Circulars, leading to the sanction of refunds by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs (Refunds). The order passed by the Asst. Commissioner was upheld as legally sound, and the Commissioner (Appeals) observed the insufficiency of documents but did not remand the matter back due to the thorough examination already conducted.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) had given the department an option to scrutinize documentary evidence to overcome the limitation aspect, with the possibility of resubmitting the appeal if successful. However, the decision to reject the Revenue's appeal was based on the belief that remanding the matter back would not serve any purpose due to the comprehensive examination already conducted.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a thorough understanding of the arguments presented and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →