9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refund claim based on unjust enrichment clause. Analysis: The Revenue challenged the Order-in-Original (OIA) allowing the refund claim but crediting the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the unjust enrichment clause. The original authority accepted a price differential on imported goods but rejected the claim citing unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the import of LLDPE granules and the submission of a Chartered Accountant's Certificate showing duty not passed on to customers. The Commissioner accepted the evidence, considering the primary export nature of the final product and non-availment of Cenvat credit. The Revenue argued that the Certificate alone was insufficient. The Tribunal noted the absence of the respondent and decided on the merits. It acknowledged the evidence presented, including the Chartered Accountant's Certificate, supporting duty non-pass through and the export of final products with no duty. The department did not challenge the Certificate, and the Commissioner's acceptance was deemed justified. The Revenue failed to rebut the evidence, precluding them from requesting additional corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and rejected the appeal. This judgment clarifies the requirements for refund claims under the unjust enrichment clause, emphasizing the importance of supporting evidence, such as a Chartered Accountant's Certificate, to demonstrate duty non-pass through. It highlights the significance of exporting final products with no duty liability and the impact on refund eligibility. The decision underscores the need for Revenue to challenge evidence directly and not rely on procedural objections without substantive basis.
|
