2004 (4) TMI 235 - AT - Customs

Refund - bar of unjust enrichment - imports parts of motor vehicles for manufacture of Montego cars - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the refund of duty has arisen consequent to the Final Order dated 10-9-96 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the favour of the Appellants. The duty paid by them in excess under two Bills of Entry in question were not included in the matter before the Tribunal. This has been fairly admitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellants. Thus the assessment of duty on the said two Bills of Entry had attained finality as the same had not been challenged by the Appellants in the appropriate appellate forum. So long as the assessment stands the duty can not be claimed as refund on the ground that in respect of similar Bills of Entry, the Tribunal has extended the benefit of Notification No. 72/93. We, therefore, reject the Appeal as far as it relates to the disallowance of refund claim in respect of two Bills of Entry. It is settled law that the presumption is that the incidence of duty paid on raw material must have been passed on by the manufacturer to the customers of its final product and it is to be proved by the manufacturer that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. This presumption is a rebuttable one. The Appellants in the present matter has produced a Certificate dated 24-12-96 from the Chartered Accountant wherein the cost structured of a montego car was given and it included selling, general and other overheads also. Except alleging that the overhead, is on the higher side, Revenue has not brought on record any material in support of that contention and to falsify the Certificate given by the Chartered Accountant. The Chartered Accountant has given the Certificate after verifying the books of accounts produced and information furnished to them. Following the decision of Jaipur Syntex Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (4) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI , we hold that the Appellants are entitled to get the amount of refund sanctioned to them by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal is thus partly allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the refund of Customs duty is available to M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. and whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable.

Summary:
1. The Appellate Tribunal considered the appeal filed by M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. regarding the refund of Customs duty paid by them. The issue revolved around the denial of benefits under Notification No. 72/93 and the application of the bar of unjust enrichment.

2. The appellant imported parts of motor vehicles for manufacturing cars, but Customs Authorities viewed it as importing cars. The Tribunal's Final Order allowed them benefits under Notification No. 72/93. However, the refund claim was rejected for certain Bills of Entry by the Assistant Commissioner, citing lack of details and the passing on of duty burden to consumers.

3. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's Order applied to all imported components, justifying the refund claim. They contended that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply, supported by a Chartered Accountant's Certificate and financial statements. They referenced previous cases to strengthen their position.

4. The Departmental Representative countered, citing the finality of assessments and the burden on the appellant to prove non-passing of duty burden. They highlighted discrepancies in the appellant's explanations and the presumption that duty burden is passed on to consumers.

5. The Tribunal analyzed both arguments, noting the finality of assessments not challenged by the appellant. They emphasized the need for the appellant to prove non-passing of duty burden, which was supported by the Chartered Accountant's Certificate and balance sheet details.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal regarding certain Bills of Entry but allowed it partially, acknowledging the appellant's entitlement to the refund amount based on the evidence provided and previous legal precedents.