2014 (3) TMI 924 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Subject to final assessment, Revenue deposit was made - refund of Security/Revenue deposit - Held that - Provisions of unjust enrichment are not attracted in this case. Further, I find the issue of unjust enrichment have been duly considered in the Order-in-Original - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund of Revenue deposit; Unjust enrichment; Interpretation of Section 27(2) of the Act; Applicability of previous rulings.

Refund of Revenue Deposit:
The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of a Revenue deposit made by the appellant after importing a Tunnel Boring Machine for a project. The appellant filed a claim for refund, which was initially allowed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs. However, the Revenue appealed, arguing that the refund was wrongly sanctioned due to unjust enrichment, as the deposit amount was provided by the main contractor. The appellant undertook to pass the refund amount to the main contractor, which was duly done. The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to the refund and overturned the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Unjust Enrichment:
The issue of unjust enrichment was a crucial point of contention in the case. The appellant argued that unjust enrichment did not apply to the refund of a Security/Revenue deposit, citing Section 27(2) of the Act and relying on a previous ruling. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the provisions of unjust enrichment were not attracted in this case. It was noted that the matter had been duly considered in the Order-in-Original, and the appellant's actions regarding passing on the refund amount were taken into account.

Interpretation of Section 27(2) of the Act:
The appellant's argument regarding the non-applicability of Section 27(2) of the Act to the refund of Security/Revenue deposit was considered by the Tribunal. The appellant relied on a specific ruling to support this interpretation. The Tribunal did not find the provisions of Section 27(2) applicable in this case, supporting the appellant's position on this matter.

Applicability of Previous Rulings:
The Tribunal took into consideration a previous ruling cited by the appellant in support of their arguments. The ruling in IDMC Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai II, 2013 (289) ELT 389 (Tri.) was referenced by the appellant to strengthen their case. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant also aligned with the principles established in the previous ruling, further supporting the appellant's position.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the Order-in-Original in favor of the appellant. The issue of unjust enrichment was thoroughly examined and found not applicable in this case, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant regarding the refund of the Revenue deposit.