2017 (1) TMI 1017 - AT - Customs

Unjust enrichment - Refund claim - SAD paid at the time of clearance of consignment through debit of DEPB licence - Held that - Tribunal in appellant s own case Standard Conduits Pvt. Ltd. And Standard Galva Steels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (EP) Mumbai 2016 (3) TMI 773 - CESTAT MUMBAI has granted relief where the refund claim is allowed by applying the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE Chennai vs. Sarlee Household & Bodycare India Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (6) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT, MADRAS - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid during consignment clearance through DEPB license debit, which was rejected solely based on unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant revised their balance sheet after objections were raised by Customs, attempting to qualify for the SAD refund. The original balance sheet did not reflect the SAD amount or receivable, raising doubts about the issue. Additionally, the refund claim was deemed ineligible under section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1992 when filed. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the party manipulated provisions to circumvent objections and cross the bar of unjust enrichment, upholding the rejection.

The appellant, aggrieved by the Commissioner's order, approached the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel argued that in a previous case with the same issue, the Tribunal had granted relief. The Assistant Commissioner relied on the impugned order. The Tribunal observed that in the appellant's previous case, relief was granted by the Tribunal in a detailed order dated 16.02.2016. The Tribunal's previous order highlighted that the revised balance sheet, filed after objections and with additional income tax paid, served as evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence, including balance sheet revisions, to determine unjust enrichment. The Tribunal distinguished this case from others where evidence was lacking, ultimately allowing the appellant's claim based on judicial discipline and consistency.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment, citing the appellant's previous case where relief was granted. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of considering all evidence, including balance sheet revisions and tax payments, to establish the non-passing of duty incidence. By following judicial discipline, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's claim for consequential relief, setting aside the Commissioner's order.