9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 412 - AT - CustomsRefund of duty paid under protest - Exemption of CVD under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 - Principle of unjust enrichment - appellant took a stand that goods imported by them does not attract CVD leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, because the excise duty on the like articles if manufactured in India is exempted by Notification No. 30/2004-CE 09.07.2004; thereafter, the appellant paid the CVD under protest and a letter of protest was also filed. HELD THAT - Thus, order of the Commissioner (A) dated 20.02.2019 allowing the appeal of the appellant by holding that exemption of CVD under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 is available to the appellant and he has allowed the appeal with consequential relief and the said decision has not been challenged by the Revenue and thus attained finality. Further, find the refund has been rejected primarily on the ground of unjust enrichment. In the appellant s own case, this Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the appellant vide Final Order 2019 (4) TMI 448 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH and in the said order the Division Bench of this Tribunal has discussed all the issues which are involved in the present case and has allowed the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief. The said decision of the Tribunal has not been stayed till date and therefore the same is binding on the revenue. The impugned order is not sustainable, therefore, the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) and upholding of Order-in-Original. 2. Applicability of CVD on imported goods. 3. Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment. 4. Challenge of unjust enrichment by appellant. 5. Binding effect of previous Tribunal decision. 6. Consideration of evidence and certificates provided. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the upholding of the Order-in-Original. The appellant imported Polyester Blankets/Polyester Mink Blankets and disputed the levy of CVD under Section 3 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, claiming exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. The appellant paid the CVD under protest and filed a refund claim which was rejected due to unjust enrichment. 2. The appellant contended that the CVD should not be applicable as they did not pass on the duty to customers, supported by sales invoices and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant. The appellant argued that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal with consequential relief had attained finality as the Revenue did not challenge it. The appellant also highlighted a previous Tribunal decision in their favor. 3. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including invoices showing no CVD charged to customers and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant confirming non-recovery of duty from customers. The Tribunal noted that the previous decision in the appellant's case had not been stayed and was binding on the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the appellant had passed the bar of unjust enrichment and was entitled to the refund of CVD paid under protest. 4. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case, emphasizing that the treatment of the duty amount in the appellant's accounts did not affect the unjust enrichment issue. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not passed on the duty incidence to customers, as evidenced by the invoices and certificates provided, thus justifying the refund claim. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law. The decision was based on the previous Tribunal ruling, the lack of challenge by the Revenue, and the evidence proving non-recovery of duty from customers. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment and emphasizing the importance of evidence and previous decisions in determining the applicability of duties on imported goods.
|
