2019 (6) TMI 224 - AT - Customs

Refund claim for the excess paid CVD - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment and time limitation - HELD THAT - As regard the time bar the refund will not arise as from the date of Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/S SRF LTD., M/S ITC LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT AND GENERAL) , NEW DELHI 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT , the appellant was not the litigant, however the law applies to the appellant case also subject to refund is filed within one year from the relevant date. In the present case, the relevant date will be a date of payment of duty - However, the appellant initially the filed the refund claim which was returned and then they resubmitted subsequently. In this case the initial filing of refund claim shall be considered as date of filing of refund claim and if it is within one year from the date of payment of duty then the same cannot be rejected on time bar. Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - The appellant have submitted only Chartered Accountant Certificate however they have not submitted any documentary evidence in support of their claim such as the price structure of the mobile, pre and post payment of excess custom duty they also not submitted their books of accounts in this regard - the matter needs to be remitted back to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment
2. Refund claim rejection based on time bar

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant imported mobile phones and paid CVD at 6%. Following a Supreme Court judgment allowing an exemption notification for CVD at 1%, the appellant filed a refund claim for the excess paid CVD. The original authority rejected the claim citing unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that the price of mobile phones remained the same, indicating no passing on of the excess duty. The appellant submitted a Chartered Accountant Certificate to support this claim. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove unjust enrichment, remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision.

Issue 2: The appellant's refund claim was also challenged on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant argued that the initial refund claim was filed within one year from the date of payment, despite being returned by the department and resubmitted later with additional documentation. The Tribunal held that the date of the initial filing should be considered for the time bar assessment. As the refund claim was within one year from the date of payment of duty, it could not be rejected solely on the basis of being time-barred. However, the Tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to provide adequate documentary evidence to support their claim of unjust enrichment, leading to the remand of the case for further review by the adjudicating authority.