2017 (9) TMI 1010 - AT - Customs

Stay of Refund granted - evidence to co-relate the figures certified by Chartered Accountant and the Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - Chartered Accountants certificate is not conclusive evidence as has been held by Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai V. BPI Ltd. 2010 (7) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , But Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the Balance Sheet of the appellant to rule out bar of unjust enrichment since refund in question appears in the Balance Sheet as recoverable from the Departments - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application by Revenue for order granting refund.
2. Disposal of appeal out of turn due to the significant amount involved.
3. Merits of the appeal regarding refund entitlement.
4. Consideration of Chartered Accountant's certificate and Balance Sheet in allowing the appeal.
5. Absence of evidence to question the examination of accounts by the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. Application of the principle of unjust enrichment in the case.
7. Dismissal of Revenue's appeal and the miscellaneous application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with a stay application by the Revenue against an order granting a significant refund to the appellant. The Tribunal rejected the stay application after a prima facie examination of the appellate order, highlighting that the appellate authority had scrutinized the recoverability of the amount in question from the Revenue, as reflected in the balance sheet of different periods. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the examination of accounts by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the rejection of the stay application and the appeal being taken up for hearing.

2. The Revenue objected to disposing of the appeal out of turn, citing the substantial amount involved and the potential prejudice due to any delay in refund grant. Despite the pendency of numerous appeals, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to expedite the disposal of this appeal to serve the interest of justice, especially given the significant refund amount at stake.

3. Regarding the merits of the appeal, the Tribunal acknowledged the lack of direct evidence correlating the figures certified by the Chartered Accountant with the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to allow the refund. However, the Tribunal noted that the Chartered Accountant's certificate was not the sole basis for the refund approval. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also considered the appellant's Balance Sheet, which indicated the recoverable refund amount from the department, as recorded in specific paragraphs of the order.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the examination of accounts by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not raise any doubts, and there was no material to challenge his findings. Despite the Chartered Accountant's certificate not being conclusive evidence, the Commissioner (Appeals) had diligently reviewed the Balance Sheet to address the issue of unjust enrichment, ensuring that the refundable amount was recoverable from the department.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, highlighting that the examination of facts and evidence by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not give rise to any doubts. In the absence of contrary evidence and with a clear understanding of the dispute, the Tribunal found no grounds to deny the refund, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the miscellaneous application.

6. The judgment concluded with the dismissal of both the miscellaneous application and the appeal, affirming the decision in favor of the appellant and emphasizing the importance of the proper examination of evidence and facts in such cases.