2008 (2) TMI 166 - AT - Customs

Twice payment of duty - respondents submitted a file before the Commissioner (Appeals) containing the submissions / Chartered Accountant s Report / costing etc to show that the double duty incidence has not been passed on to the buyers - Revenue has not produced any evidence to prove incidence of duty has been passed moreover, goods not in existence during relevant time so question of passing of duty doesn t arise revenue appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for double payment of duty, application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment, maintainability of the appeal by the Revenue.

Refund Claim for Double Payment of Duty:
The case involved a refund claim by the respondents for the duty levied twice on the same goods due to short shipment of containers. The duty amount on the amended Bill of Entry (B/E) for eight containers was less than the duty paid initially for ten containers, resulting in a refund claim of Rs. 70,094. The Asst. Commissioner sanctioned the refund based on the Bombay High Court judgment and the doctrine of unjust enrichment, as the duty was collected on goods that did not arrive, and thus, could not have been passed on to any buyer.

Application of the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:
The Asst. Commissioner justified the refund by stating that since duty was collected on goods that did not arrive, there was no question of passing on the duty incidence to any buyer, thus negating the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this reasoning, citing case law and the absence of evidence showing that the duty incidence was passed on to any other party. The Tribunal also referred to a previous case to support the position that duty cannot be passed on for non-existent goods.

Maintainability of the Appeal by the Revenue:
The Revenue appealed the decision, arguing against the refund claim. However, the Tribunal found that the short landing of containers was an admitted fact, and the duty paid pertained to non-existent goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to provide evidence contradicting the respondents' claim that the duty incidence was not passed on. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that it lacked substance and was not maintainable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the refund claim, emphasizing the non-existence of goods for which duty was paid and the lack of evidence showing the passing on of duty incidence. The decision was based on the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and previous case law supporting the non-passing on of duty for non-existent goods.