2016 (12) TMI 765 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable in respect of raw material imported and consumed in the manufacture of a final product? - Held that - We find that both the lower authorities even in the denovo proceedings denied the refund merely on the ground that imported goods were captively used for manufacuter of final product and as per the Hon ble Apex Court judgment in case of Solar Pesticide Pvt Ltd. 2000 (2) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , unjust enrichment is applicable on captive consumption. However, we observed that appellant has made submission before the lower authorities that though the imported goods were used captively but the price of the final product was not changed due to payment of duty on the imported goods. Moreover the appellant has produced C.A. certificate certifying that incidence of duty paid by the appellant has not been passed on to consumer. The appellant had also submitted that the price of the medicine manufactured out of the imported input i.e. DPCO price which is fixed by the government and therefore extra payment of duty does not influence the DPCO price of the goods. We observed that both the lower authorities have not considered all these above submission in the proper perspective as no finding was given on the aforesaid submission made by the appellant. Both the lower authorities were mainly confined to the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in case of Solar Pesticide Pvt Ltd. Here the issue is not that whether the provision of unjust enrichment is applicable or otherwise but matter has to be examined on the factual matrix in the facts narrated by the appellant, whether the incidence of the duty has passed on or otherwise, which both the lower authorities have failed to address. We therefore find that this is a fit case for remand to the original adjudicating authority who should consider all the submission made by the appellant and give cogent findings regarding the passing/not passing of incidence of duty paid on the imported goods - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Refund of custom duty based on unjust enrichment for imported goods used in captive consumption.

Analysis:
The appellant imported Ethoxy Methylene Diethyl Malonate and filed a refund application for custom duty, which was rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment. The matter was remanded for denovo consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals). The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim again, citing that the imported goods were used in the manufacture of the final product, leading to unjust enrichment as per the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the appellant argued that the price of the final product remained unchanged despite the duty payment on imported goods. The appellant provided a C.A. certificate stating that the duty incidence was not passed on to the consumer and that the price of the medicine was regulated by the government, unaffected by the duty payment. The lower authorities failed to consider these submissions, focusing solely on the legal precedent. The Tribunal noted that the issue was not merely about unjust enrichment but required an examination of whether the duty incidence had actually been passed on. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing a comprehensive review of the appellant's submissions. The adjudicating authority was directed to provide a new decision within three months, granting the appellant a personal hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, acknowledging the complexity of the case dating back to 1991.