2013 (8) TMI 776 - AT - Customs

Duty under protest - Refund claim unjust enrichment Held that - Assesse had not been able to show that there was no unjust enrichment - the finding was a finding of fact based on evidence which does not call for any interference would show that they did not really went to analyze the evidences and the statutory requirements - it was not clear as to how the CA concerned or the proprietor did not think of showing this amount either as a disputed amount or as a receivable relying on CC, Chennai Vs. BPL Ltd. 2010 (7) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Much more was missing in this case as it was seen from the analysis of the CA certificate made above and the decisions cited by the AR Decided against assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The case involved a proprietary concern engaged in manufacturing Malt Proteins, which imported Glucidex IT-12. The Customs authorities enhanced the declared value, leading to the appellant paying duty under protest. Subsequently, the appellant succeeded in having their declared value accepted for assessment and filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid. The refund claim was rejected due to the appellant's failure to demonstrate the absence of unjust enrichment.

The appellant argued that they had not passed on the additional duty to customers, supported by a chartered accountant certificate and the fact that the MRP of their final product remained unchanged. They relied on a Supreme Court decision to emphasize that if the sale price remained constant and there was an auditor's certificate, the burden of customs duty could not be deemed passed on. However, the Departmental Representative contended that maintaining the same price pre and post-importation was insufficient to prove no unjust enrichment, citing various decisions including those by the Tribunal and High Court.

The Tribunal analyzed the CA certificate provided by the appellant, noting that it primarily relied on the ER-1 returns and the unchanged MRP to certify the absence of passing on the duty. The Tribunal questioned why the appellant did not initially show the disputed amount as receivables, suggesting an afterthought due to the certificate's issuance in 2009. The Tribunal also scrutinized the Supreme Court decision cited by the appellant, concluding that it upheld the Tribunal's finding of fact without delving into the evidence or statutory requirements. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to sufficiently prove the absence of unjust enrichment, aligning with previous decisions against the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's inability to establish the absence of unjust enrichment. The decision highlighted the importance of providing substantial evidence beyond a mere assertion and a CA certificate to support refund claims in customs matters.