9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 739 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment - Revenue contended that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) merely followed the order of Mundra Custom, however he has not independently examined the aspect of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) simply followed the order of Mundra (Custom) and no independent finding was given as regard the unjust enrichment. Despite that the Revenue has raised the ground of unjust enrichment in their appeal. As regard, the issue of unjust enrichment, it is purely based on the fact on the basis and the same can be established on the basis of books of accounts along with CA Certificate. The issue of unjust enrichment depends on fact of each case, however, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) except following the order of Mundra (Customs), neither examined the fact of unjust enrichment of the present case, nor given any independent finding. Therefore, the matter related to issue of unjust enrichment needs to be reconsidered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) only for the purpose of examining the issue of unjust enrichment on the basis of records such as CA Certificate, books of accounts etc. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Appeal challenging refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved a challenge by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the refund granted to the Respondent. The case revolved around the import of cranes under a contract with a Foreign Party in the USA, where the Respondent claimed a partial exemption under Notification No. 72/2017-Cus. The dispute arose due to the completion of the contract within 9 months, leading to a difference in the applicable duty rate. The Respondent sought a refund for the excess duty paid, supported by a Chartered Accountant Certificate stating no unjust enrichment. While the refund for import at Mundra Port was allowed, the refund for import at Kandla Port was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner (Refund), leading to an appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not independently examine the aspect of unjust enrichment but merely followed the order of Mundra Customs. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly relied on the findings of Mundra Customs and the common CA Certificate provided for both ports. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal was solely based on unjust enrichment, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had not provided an independent finding on this issue. The Tribunal emphasized that unjust enrichment must be established based on facts such as books of accounts and CA Certificates. As the Commissioner (Appeals) did not conduct a detailed examination of unjust enrichment, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough review based on relevant records. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a reassessment of the issue of unjust enrichment. The decision highlighted the importance of independently examining each case's facts to determine unjust enrichment accurately. The judgment aimed to ensure a fair and thorough assessment of the unjust enrichment aspect in the refund claim, emphasizing the significance of proper documentation and evidence in such matters.
|
