2018 (4) TMI 1051 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - whether the appellant had passed on the burden of refund amount of ₹ 40,36,127/- to others which was deposited with the department at the time of provisional assessment of the imported goods, during the period August 2010 to November 2010? Held that - the appellant has not passed on the burden of the amount claimed as refund to others, as the refund amount shown as Provision in balance sheet of 2010-11, reversed in the subsequent Financial year 2011-12 - Also, based on the same balance sheet of 2010-11, the 1% RD made at other customs houses, have been refunded to the appellant without raising the issue of unjust enrichment. The appellants are eligible to the refund claim paid as RD at the time of provisional assessment of the goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues involved:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 278/Commr.(A)/JMN/13 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jamnagar.
- Determination of whether the burden of refund amount of ?40,36,127/- was passed on to others by the appellant.
- Transfer of the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment to Revenue deposits.

Analysis:

1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 278/Commr.(A)/JMN/13 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jamnagar. The appeal was made following the rejection of their refund claim by the authorities, leading to the transfer of the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund under the provisions of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Burden of Refund Amount:
The central issue in the case was to determine whether the appellant had passed on the burden of the refund amount of ?40,36,127/- to others. The appellant had initially made a 1% RD on imported goods during the period from August 2010 to November 2010. While the refund was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority, it was transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the grounds that the burden had been passed on to customers. However, the appellant argued that the provision created in the financial year 2010-11 was reversed in the subsequent financial year 2011-12, indicating that the burden was not passed on.

3. Transfer to Consumer Welfare Fund:
The authorities contended that the provision created by the appellant had reduced the profit earned for the financial year 2010-2011, suggesting that the refund amount was treated as an expenditure and passed on to customers. The appellant, supported by a Chartered Accountant's Certificate and relevant balance sheet extracts, demonstrated that the provision was reversed in the subsequent financial year, indicating that the burden was not passed on as alleged.

4. Unjust Enrichment and Revenue Deposits:
The issue of unjust enrichment and its applicability to Revenue deposits was also raised during the proceedings. The appellant argued that based on the same balance sheet of 2010-11, refunds of 1% RD made at other customs houses were granted without raising the issue of unjust enrichment. This further supported the appellant's contention that the burden of the refund amount was not passed on to others.

5. Judgment and Relief:
After considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. It was held that the appellant had not passed on the burden of the refund amount to others, as evidenced by the reversal of the provision in the subsequent financial year. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief as per law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved in the case and provides a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by both parties, leading to the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant.

← Previous Next →