2024 (6) TMI 55 - AT - Customs

Refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - From perusal of the record, it is quite evident that while claiming the special duty levied in lieu of the sale tax, invoices and VAT Challan duly supported by the CA Certificate were produced before the original authority. Original Authority in response to question no.9 specifically recorded that certificate dated 17.09.2017 explaining the grounds for not passing the burden of 4% Additional duty by the importer submitted, once, he has examined the refund claim for applicability of unjust enrichment in order the same cannot be faulted with on the grounds stated in the appeal. Commissioner (Appeals) has also concluded the same. It is also settled principle in law that the same findings of the fact arrived by the original and appellate authority sitting independently should not to be challenged or faulted in review filed by the revenue unless the same is shown to be perverse. No perversity has been shown in the impugned order by revenue while filing this appeal. Following the case of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke Versus Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar Ors. 2023 (9) TMI 1475 - SUPREME COURT , we do not find any merits in this appeal filed by the revenue. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) levied in lieu of VAT.
2. Examination of refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment.
3. Compliance with conditions stipulated in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14-9-07.
4. Evaluation of findings by the Original and Appellate Authorities.
5. Jurisdiction and principles under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) Levied in Lieu of VAT:
The respondent filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs.38,821/- for SAD levied in lieu of VAT, supported by documents such as VAT Challan, sale invoices, and a CA Certificate. The Original Authority allowed the refund claim in favor of the respondent, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Examination of Refund Claim on the Grounds of Unjust Enrichment:
The revenue appealed on the grounds that the refund should have been examined for unjust enrichment. The Original Authority had specifically recorded that a certificate dated 17.09.2017 was submitted, explaining the grounds for not passing the burden of 4% Additional Duty by the importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) also concluded that the claim was examined for unjust enrichment and upheld the Original Authority's decision.

3. Compliance with Conditions Stipulated in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus Dated 14-9-07:
The Original Authority reviewed the refund claim against the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14-9-07. The authority confirmed that the respondent fulfilled all conditions, including filing the claim within the prescribed time, providing proof of duty payment, submitting sale invoices, and providing a CA Certificate correlating the payment of VAT with the sales invoices. The authority also verified that the burden of 4% Additional Duty was not passed on to the buyer.

4. Evaluation of Findings by the Original and Appellate Authorities:
The judgment emphasized that findings of fact by the Original and Appellate Authorities should not be challenged unless shown to be perverse. The revenue did not demonstrate any perversity in the findings. The judgment referenced the case of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke Versus Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar & Ors., highlighting the principles for maintaining findings of fact unless they are perverse.

5. Jurisdiction and Principles under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC):
The judgment reiterated the principles under Section 100 CPC, emphasizing the requirement of a "substantial question of law" for a second appeal to be maintainable. The court noted that the jurisdiction under this section is restrictive and should not be exercised merely because an alternate view is possible. The judgment cited several cases, including Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Ors., and Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, to illustrate the limited scope of interference in findings of fact.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed as it lacked merit. The findings of the Original and Appellate Authorities were upheld, and no substantial question of law was found to warrant interference. The judgment emphasized the adherence to legal principles and the restricted scope of second appeals under Section 100 CPC.

← Previous Next →