2000 (11) TMI 853 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against grant of benefit under Notification 64/93 - Interpretation of Notification conditions - Applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The department appealed against the grant of benefit under Notification 64/93, which was denied by the adjudicating authority due to the importer not fulfilling the specified conditions for exemption as a manufacturer. However, the appellate authority held that the importer correctly claimed the benefit based on satisfying the conditions of the notification. The main consideration was whether the importer met the conditions of Notification 64/93, with the term "manufacturer" being interpreted to include an importer for levy of additional duty. The appellate authority relied on the judgment in the case of Thermax Pvt. Ltd. and granted the refund as claimed by the importer.

The Department argued that the notification could not apply to the case, emphasizing the conditional nature of the notification and the importer's failure to fulfill the conditions. Reference was made to the doctrine of unjust enrichment, citing the judgment in the case of Solar Pesticides, and contended that the importer, not being a manufacturer under the notification, should not benefit from it.

In response, the Counsel for the importer contended that the case should be viewed in light of the Customs Tariff Act, where recent judgments treated the importer as a manufacturer. The Counsel relied on previous Supreme Court judgments and argued that once the goods were registered as a taxi by the importer, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and focused on the applicability of condition No. (iii) of Notification 64/93, which required passing on the exemption benefit if goods were not sold. The importer was treated as a manufacturer, as per the interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act, and was entitled to a refund if the duty paid exceeded the concessional duty amount. The Tribunal found that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply in this case as the goods were used by the importer as a taxi and not sold to any person. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals and upheld the order in favor of the importer.