9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to customs duty on imported capital goods. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai dealt with the issue of whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment, as per Section 27 of the Customs Act, is applicable to the refund claim of customs duty paid on imported capital goods under the EPCG Scheme. The original authority had credited the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, citing unjust enrichment. The first appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of the Apex Court's ruling in Union of India v. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., which was applied to a claim of refund of duty paid on imported raw material. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) extended this ruling to capital goods, which was challenged in the current appeal. The appellant relied on case law, including Golden Iron & Steel Forgings and Pearl Beverages Ltd., to contest the applicability of unjust enrichment to capital goods. On the contrary, the Ld. DR referenced the Tribunal's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co., arguing that the Solar Pesticides ruling is relevant to the instant case. However, the Tribunal referred to the case of Grasim Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III, where it was clarified that the Solar Pesticides judgment did not address the issue of captive consumption of capital goods. The Tribunal concluded that the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply to the refund claim of customs duty on the imported capital goods in question. Therefore, the appellants were deemed entitled to a cash refund of the duty, directing the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs to process the refund within three months. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with the specified refund directive.
|
