2019 (12) TMI 195 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 - rejection on the ground that the appellants have failed to establish correlation between the imported cars and the cars sold and also on the ground that the burden of 4% SAD had not passed on to others - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - Learned Advocate for the appellant demonstrated on sample basis, referring to the Chasis/frame and engine no. of the imported cars and the ones shown in the respective sales documents indicating that the same cars (CBU) that were imported had been sold by them satisfying the condition of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007. Also, in support of their argument that the burden of 4% SAD has been borne by them, the Ld. Adv. has demonstrated, besides the Chartered Accountant s Certificate certifying that the burden of duty has been borne by them, by comparing the value of the cars imported sold indicating that refund amount has not been collected from their customers; also the refund amount due to the Appellant has been reflected in the respective balance-sheet as receivable. To ascertain the eligibility of refund of 4% SAD paid at the time of import of CARS(CBU), all the relevant documents need to be scrutinized thoroughly in respect of each of the claim filed - Matter needs reconsideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of cause title in a Miscellaneous Application.
2. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD).
3. Correlation between imported cars and those sold.
4. Unjust enrichment in refund claims.

Change of Cause Title:
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the change of cause title from "M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd." to "M/s Honda Cars India Ltd." due to a fresh certificate of incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi & Haryana.

Appeal against Order-in-Appeal - Refund of SAD:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of refund claims of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported cars. The appellant had imported cars and filed for a refund based on specific documentation. The authorities rejected the claims citing a lack of correlation between imported and sold cars and the issue of unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that they provided relevant documents, including sales invoices and VAT Auditor's certificate, to establish the correlation. The matter was remanded for re-examination by the adjudicating authority.

Correlation between Imported and Sold Cars:
The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to a refund of 4% SAD on imported cars sold locally. The authorities had rejected the claims due to the failure to establish a correlation between imported and sold cars and the burden of SAD not passing on to customers. The appellant demonstrated through sample analysis that the same imported cars were sold, satisfying the conditions for the refund. The burden of SAD was argued to have been borne by the appellant, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate and balance-sheet entries. The Tribunal found that a thorough scrutiny of all relevant documents was necessary, and remanded the matter for re-examination to establish the correlation and address the issue of unjust enrichment.

Unjust Enrichment in Refund Claims:
The appellant contended that the burden of 4% SAD had not been passed on to customers, supported by financial evidence. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of detailed findings by the lower authorities and emphasized the need for a proper examination of the evidence. The matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication to ensure a comprehensive review of the documents and a determination of the eligibility for the refund. The Tribunal directed the completion of the re-examination within four months from the date of the order.