9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund claim based on unjust enrichment under Section 11B. Analysis: The appellant, an EOU, received goods from a foreign supplier and converted them into different products, receiving job charges for the conversion work. An amount of Rs. 70,000/- was erroneously paid as duty, which was later refunded. However, a show cause notice was issued, alleging that the appellant did not meet the unjust enrichment requirement under Section 11B. The lower authorities ruled against the appellant, leading to the present appeal challenging those decisions. Upon review, it was found that the appellant had not received any reimbursement of the Customs duty paid and had returned the materials after job work without passing on the duty to its customer. The appellant only received job charges as per a specific schedule. The documents presented clearly demonstrated that there was no unjust enrichment as alleged. The appellate tribunal concluded that the lower authorities' decision was not in line with the facts of the case, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. In summary, the judgment revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for a refund claim concerning unjust enrichment under Section 11B. The tribunal found that the appellant had not passed on the Customs duty paid to its customer and had not received any reimbursement, thus dismissing the allegation of unjust enrichment. The decision highlighted the importance of reviewing transaction records to establish the absence of unjust enrichment in such cases.
|
