2017 (7) TMI 76 - AT - Customs

Unjust enrichment - refund claim - Held that - in support of the refund claim appellant has filed all the documents and also filed a certificate of the CA who has certified that the lamps were recorded in the fixed asset register and fixed in the operation theatre and the same are being used for surgical procedure and not sold. In fact both the authorities have not considered the certificate issued by the CA and have ignored the same by holding that it does not conclusively prove that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to the ultimate consumer - on an identical issue the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CC Chennai Vs. Venkataeswara Hospitals 2009 (4) TMI 925 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that bar of unjust enrichment not applicable to imported capital goods used captively by the importer - refund cannot be denied. Interest - Held that - the appellant is entitled to interest as laid down in Section 27A in accordance with the rates fixed by the Central Government s notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported items, refund claim, unjust enrichment, interest on delayed refund claim.

Classification of Imported Items:
The appellant imported Hospital Operation Theatre Lamps and classified them under CTH 9018.19, while the Department classified them under CTH 8539.39. The CESTAT Order dated 18.07.2006 favored the appellant's classification. The appellant filed a refund claim for excess duty paid based on the CESTAT order, supported by documents including a CA certificate. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund but credited it to the Welfare Fund due to the appellant's failure to meet the requirements of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

Unjust Enrichment:
The appellant contended that the impugned order failed to consider the documents produced and ignored the CA certificate, fixed asset register, discharge bills, and other supporting documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the CA certificate did not prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers. However, the appellant cited judicial precedents to support their claim, emphasizing that the CA certificate certified the lamps were used for surgical procedures and not sold. The appellant's case aligned with a Madras High Court decision that unjust enrichment does not apply to imported capital goods used captively.

Interest on Delayed Refund Claim:
The appellant claimed interest on the delayed refund, citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944, which mandates the Department to decide refund claims within three months. Failure to do so entitles the appellant to claim interest. Judicial decisions were referenced to support this claim. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief, including interest as per Section 27A of the Customs Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of classification of imported items, unjust enrichment, and interest on delayed refund claim, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the authorities involved.