2022 (1) TMI 574 - AT - Customs

Seeking refund of deposit - the amount is deposit or duty? - provisional assessment as a security to the bond executed by the appellant - time limitation - unjust enrichment - Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Under the Head of Account it is a customs duty which was paid under account heading No.0037 and also in the description coloumn it is clearly mentioned that the deposit of amount is equal to 20% of provisional duty therefore, the amount of ₹ 16,39,458/- has been paid as customs duty only therefore it is not a deposit as has been claimed by the appellant but it is a custom duty. Since in view of the documentary evidence, it is established that the amount for which refund was sought for by the appellant is not a deposit but it is a duty. Therefore, the refund is clearly governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore, all the provision of limitation and unjust enrichment, etc is clearly applicable. Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether refund of deposit made with reference to provisional assessment as security to the bond executed by the appellant is governed by Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 and if the provision of time limit and unjust enrichment is applicable.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Indonesian Coal and filed a Bill of Entry which was assessed provisionally due to lack of original documents. The appellant paid an estimated duty and deposited an amount under protest as security for provisional assessment. The final assessment was completed on 11.10.2011, and the appellant requested a refund of the deposit. The Customs denied the refund claim citing time limit and unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The appellant argued that the deposited amount was a security deposit, not duty, and should have been refunded upon finalization of assessment without the need for a separate refund claim. They relied on legal precedents to support their claim that the security deposit should be treated differently from duty, and thus exempt from the time limit and unjust enrichment provisions of Section 27.

3. The appellant also highlighted that the security deposit was paid under protest, emphasizing that similar cases in the past had resulted in refunds without the burden of proving unjust enrichment. They presented various judgments to strengthen their argument, asserting that the amount in question was indeed a security deposit and not duty, warranting a refund without the constraints of Section 27.

4. The Revenue contended that the amount claimed as a deposit was, in fact, a duty paid by the appellant as evidenced by the bond and payment challan. They argued that the refund should be governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, including provisions related to time limits and unjust enrichment. The Revenue relied on legal judgments to support their position.

5. The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence, including the bond and payment challan, and concluded that the amount claimed by the appellant as a deposit was, in reality, a duty paid. Therefore, the refund was held to be governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, making all relevant provisions, including time limits and unjust enrichment, applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appellant's claim and dismissed the appeal.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.