2024 (12) TMI 65 - AT - Customs

Refund claim being the excess payment of duty held as refundable consequent upon the passing of the Order-in-Original - original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the original Bills of Entry and their duty payment documents that is TR-6 challans were not placed on record. Secondly, since the assessments were provisional and the above order finalising the provisional assessments, the PD bonds were to be finalised and cancelled; and the cancellation of PD bonds was also not placed on record and no evidences was produced to prove unjust enrichment HELD THAT - The Order-in-Appeal which was relied upon by the authorities to reject the refund claim has been set aside by this Tribunal vide Final Order 2022 (1) TMI 326 - CESTAT BANGALORE . Hence, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim on this ground cannot be sustained. Non-submission of TR-6 challans and Bills of Entry - Appellant is directed to file the same before the refund authority after collecting it from the assessment group as stated by them in their letter dated 16.05.2016. Since the PD bonds has to be finalised and cancelled by the Department, it is for the Revenue to cancel the same and communicate to the concerned refund section. Unjust enrichment - Tribunal vide Final Order had clearly held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to the provisions assessments prior to 2006 before the amendment to Section 27 read with Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. In similar cases, this Tribunal 2023 (10) TMI 1460 - CESTAT BANGALORE has remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of documents. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority to process the refund claims needless to say an opportunity of hearing to be provided to the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on non-submission of documents, unjust enrichment, and previous appellate orders.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for excess duty payment, which was rejected by the original authority due to missing Bills of Entry and TR-6 challans, non-cancellation of PD bonds, lack of evidence for unjust enrichment, and reliance on a previous order-in-original. The appellant argued that provisional assessments were finalized based on SVB orders, and the original authority had ordered a refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in Final Order No. 20005-20010/2022, upheld the original order and ruled that unjust enrichment does not apply to provisional assessments pre-2006.

The Tribunal referenced decisions by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Gujarat High Court regarding interest on differential duty pre-2006, stating that no interest could be imposed retrospectively. The Karnataka High Court's ruling on unjust enrichment pre-2006 was also cited. The Tribunal found no merit in the rejection of the refund claim based on previous orders and non-submission of documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals and directing the appellant to submit missing documents. It emphasized that unjust enrichment does not apply to pre-2006 provisional assessments. The Tribunal remanded similar cases for document verification, indicating a consistent approach. The appeal was allowed for remand to process the refund claims, with the appellant granted an opportunity for a hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the legality of refund claim rejection, the applicability of unjust enrichment pre-2006, and the necessity of proper document submission for processing the refund claims. The judgment clarified legal principles and provided a pathway for the appellant to address the issues raised during the appeal process.