2012 (9) TMI 175 - CGOVT - Customs

Unjust enrichment - Refund claim of custom duty - refund claim was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority, however, he order to re-credit the claimed amount in the consumer welfare fund on the ground that the respondent failed to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on by them Held that - Non-availment of Modvat credit, C.A. certificate to the effect that the duty incidence has not been passed on by the respondent are sufficient supporting documentary evidences for Balance Sheet as main documentary evidence. All such documentary evidences are sufficient to prove that duty incidence has not been passed on by the respondent

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Section 27(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Burden of duty passed on to consumer - Evidence submitted by the Respondent - Chartered Accountant Certificate validity - Relevant supporting documents - Unjust enrichment aspect - Compliance with legal requirements - Interpretation of judgments - Proof of duty incidence not passed on.

Analysis:
The case involved a refund claim under Section 27(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Respondent regarding short-landed goods. The Respondent, a company, filed the claim based on the discrepancy in the quantity of imported steel coils. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the claim but ordered the amount to be re-credited to the consumer welfare fund as the Respondent failed to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, citing evidence provided by the Respondent, including audited books of account, profit and loss account, and a chartered accountant certificate showing the amount as customs duty receivable. The main contention raised by the applicant Commissioner was the insufficiency of the Chartered Accountant Certificate to prove non-passing of duty burden to consumers, as it did not include relevant sales bills or documents supporting the claim.

The Respondent argued that they did not pass on the duty burden as evidenced by the absence of sales against the short-landed quantity and the non-inclusion of the duty amount in the cost of materials. The Respondent also highlighted that they were not asked to provide specific documents like sales bills or invoices related to unjust enrichment. During the Personal Hearing, the Respondent requested time to respond to the applicant's contentions, but no reply was received. The Government reviewed all submissions and documents, noting the absence of specific requests for certain documents and the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Respondent, including the Chartered Accountant Certificate and financial statements.

The Government found that the judgments cited by the applicant did not mandate the submission of sales bills alone as proof of non-passing of duty burden. Furthermore, the Government emphasized that the absence of Modvat credit, the Chartered Accountant certificate confirming non-passing of duty burden, and the Balance Sheet showing the refund amount as outstanding were adequate documentary evidence. Ultimately, the Government upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revision Application, deeming it lacking in merit.