2019 (6) TMI 113 - AT - Customs

Refund of duty - amount paid under protest - rejection of the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - The order of Tribunal dated 01/04/2005 dispatched to the appellant on 05/04/2005, and the refund claim has been filed on 04/10/2005. In our view, communication of order is relevant for computing the period of six months. Accordingly, the refund claim is within time - refund cannot be rejected on the ground of time bar. Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - The learned Advocate produced the CA certificates and other evidences to establish that the burden has been discharged - Even though the authorities below considered CA certificate but not accepted it observing that the supporting evidence like balance sheet and profit and loss accounts, etc. had not been produced before them - Learned Advocate fairly submits that all the relevant documents/evidence would be produced, including the balance sheet. In the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority to analyze the certificates that were produced earlier and the certificate dated 18/12/2018 placed. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on limitation
2. Burden of proof for unjust enrichment

Refund Claim Rejection Based on Limitation:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, which rejected their refund claim of &8377;1,39,98,148. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing limitation and failure to prove that duty incidence was not passed on. The appellant argued that their refund claim, filed within six months of receiving the Tribunal's order, was not time-barred. They contended that even though the protest against the denial of benefit was withdrawn, their appeal itself was a continuation of protest. Citing the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, they asserted that the burden of proof for limitation was met. The appellant also presented Chartered Accountant certificates and evidence to show that the duty incidence was not passed on to others.

Burden of Proof for Unjust Enrichment:
The Revenue argued that the refund claim should have been filed within six months from the date of the order, as per Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. They claimed that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that duty incidence was not passed on. The authorities below did not accept the CA certificates presented by the appellant, stating that supporting documents like balance sheets were missing. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, found that the refund claim was filed within the time limit and that the burden of proof for unjust enrichment was met by the appellant's evidence. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a detailed analysis of the certificates and evidence presented by the appellant to establish that duty incidence was not passed on. The appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to provide all necessary documents for further review.