2019 (8) TMI 761 - HC - Customs

Refund of Customs duty - principle of unjust enrichment - passing over of incidence of duty or not - HELD THAT - The respondent/Assessee, upon directions of this Court has produced a copy of the Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in favour of the respondent/Assessee to the effect that the amount of refund due to the assessee has not been taken into account while arriving at the cost of services provided to the customers and therefore, the incidence of duty in question has never been passed on to the customers and refund will not result in any unjust enrichment to the assessee. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the finding of facts written by the learned Tribunal based upon cogent evidence including the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in favour of the assessee which has not been rebutted by the Revenue by any procedure known to law and such findings of facts are binding - there is no merit in the present appeal filed by the Revenue - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Refund of duty amounting to ?7,62,841.
2. Unjust enrichment principle applicability.
3. Validity of Chartered Accountant's certificate.
4. Finding of facts by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order directing the refund of duty amounting to ?7,62,841 to the respondent/Assessee after a series of litigations. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing that the goods imported by the appellant were used internally in their hotel and not sold to customers, hence the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply.

2. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to establish that the duty paid was recovered from customers. The Chartered Accountant's certificate confirmed that the duty amount was not included in the cost of services provided to customers, ensuring no unjust enrichment to the Assessee. The Tribunal upheld this finding, emphasizing that the Revenue did not challenge the certificate's accuracy or provide evidence to refute it.

3. The Court, after considering the arguments from both parties, concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. The Tribunal's findings, supported by the Chartered Accountant's certificate, remained unchallenged by the Revenue using any legal procedure. As a result, the Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

4. The judgment highlights the importance of factual findings based on evidence, such as the Chartered Accountant's certificate, in determining the applicability of the unjust enrichment principle in refund cases. The Court's decision underscores the significance of substantiating claims and rebutting evidence effectively in legal proceedings to support one's case comprehensively.