2012 (9) TMI 500 - AT - Customs

Refund unjust enrichment refund has been rejected only on the ground that in their books of accounts, the appellant had shown amounts of duty as claims recoverable from Customs but the amount of interest was not shown as recoverable from customs Held that - Merely because the interest amount was not shown as recoverable amount from the customers, clause of unjust enrichment cannot be attracted - appellant is eligible for the refund

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of interest on duty payable on finalization of assessment, eligibility for refund of excess duty, unjust enrichment clause.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the rejection of a claim for refund of interest on duty paid during the finalization of assessment for 11 out of 42 Bills of Entry. The appellant had already received a refund of more than Rs. 96 Lakhs, which was paid in excess, and the Revenue did not consider this refund as unjust enrichment. The main contention was that although duty amounts were shown as recoverable from Customs in the appellant's books, the interest amount was not, leading to the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment.

Upon hearing both sides, it was argued that since the duty had not been passed on due to the unique pricing structure of petroleum products, the interest amount not being shown as recoverable from Customs should not trigger the unjust enrichment clause. The Tribunal acknowledged that interest is an appendage to the principal amount, and if the principal amount is shown as recoverable, the same should apply to the interest. Additionally, previous decisions in similar cases involving petroleum products supported the view that unjust enrichment does not apply in such scenarios.

The Tribunal found that the duty had already been refunded as it was not passed on, and the appellant had calculated and recovered the interest from customers. Therefore, the failure to specifically show the interest amount as recoverable from Customs should not disqualify the appellant from the refund. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for the refund, citing the principle that in cases where duty was not recovered due to administrative price mechanisms, interest should also not be considered as passed on. As a result, the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants.