2000 (10) TMI 71 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act.
2. Applicability of the bar of unjust enrichment.
3. Verification of refund claim amounting to Rs. 3,14,557/-.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim of Rs. 72,00,432/- by the appellants for duty paid on Special Valuation Branch (SVB) loading. The Deputy Commissioner rejected a part of the claim as inadmissible under Section 27 of the Customs Act, directing the remaining amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the possibility of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellants decided to give up certain portions of the refund claim and confined it to Rs. 67,36,790/-. They argued that the bar of unjust enrichment should not apply to amounts paid as revenue deposits, citing a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Kinetic Motors. The Tribunal considered the facts, noting that the bills of entry were provisionally assessed and later finalized without loading. Referring to the Kinetic Motors case, the Tribunal held that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply in cases of finalization of provisional assessment, following the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries.

3. The Tribunal found the appellants entitled to the refund of Rs. 63,95,121/- and Rs. 27,112/-, paid as duty on a bill of entry dated 24-11-96. The claim for refund of Rs. 3,14,557/- required verification with the original bill of entry, leading to a remand of this specific issue to the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that unjust enrichment does not apply in cases of finalization of assessment, aligning with previous rulings and the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the refund of the specified amounts and remanding the verification of one claim to the Assistant Commissioner. The decision was based on the established principle that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply in cases of finalization of provisional assessment, as supported by relevant legal precedents.