2008 (12) TMI 162 - AT - Customs

Refund of Customs Duty paid on excess Unjust Enrichment - it is seen from records that the respondents had canvassed their entitlement to the entire refund claimed with records showing that discount allowed was towards the excess duty claimed as refund. Therefore unjust enrichment did not entail refund of Rs. 445634/-. - Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed cash refund of this excess discount HUL had allowed on clearances of 1000 ml packages of refined oil since 31-10-01. The respondents had thus established that they had not passed on the excess duty paid to the extent of Rs. 60,434/- to their customers and qualified for cash refund of this excess duty as held by the lower appellate authority. In the circumstances, the impugned order rightly held that refund of Rs. 60,434/- did not involve unjust enrichment. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as devoid of merit.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Refund of excess customs duty erroneously paid by the respondent.
2. Interpretation of discount scheme and its link to duty liability.
3. Application of unjust enrichment principle in granting the refund.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of excess customs duty
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue regarding the refund of excess customs duty paid by the respondent, a company that imported crude palm oil. The respondent had paid excess duty of Rs. 4,45,634/- due to a reduction in customs duty after clearing a quantity of crude palm oil post-reduction. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially ordered a refund of Rs. 3.30 lakhs, but the Tribunal set aside the order for a speaking order. The impugned order granted a refund of Rs. 60,434/-, finding that it did not involve unjust enrichment as the excess duty was not passed on to customers.

Issue 2: Interpretation of discount scheme
The Commissioner (A) analyzed the discount scheme applied by the respondent on the sale of refined oil. The discount was linked to the duty reduction on inputs, and it was found that the excess discount on refined oil in 1000 ml packages was to offset the excess duty paid by not availing the duty reduction. The Revenue challenged this, arguing that the discount was a marketing strategy and not linked to duty liability. However, the impugned order upheld the link between the discount and duty payment, allowing the refund based on this connection.

Issue 3: Unjust enrichment principle
The key consideration was whether granting the refund would lead to unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found that the respondent had established that the excess duty paid was not passed on to customers, justifying the refund of Rs. 60,434/-. The order emphasized that the refund amount was specifically linked to the excess duty paid and did not involve unjust enrichment. Both sides did not raise any grounds for a different refund amount, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the refund of Rs. 60,434/- to the respondent, emphasizing the link between the discount scheme and duty liability while ensuring compliance with the unjust enrichment principle.