2014 (12) TMI 68 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that - admittedly, the appellant has not paid any duty at the time of importation of the goods. They have made a security deposit under project import scheme. It is not disputed that the said amount is not refundable to the appellant. Only dispute in these circumstances is whether bar of unjust enrichment is applicable or not. The appellant has produced a certificate from the Chartered Accountant and shown as receivables in the balance sheet, therefore, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable for security deposit. Further, I find that in the case of IDMC Ltd. vs. CC 2013 (2) TMI 257 - CESTAT MUMBAI , this Tribunal has held that in the case of cash securities deposit, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim due to the failure to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. The case involved the importation of plant and machinery under the Project Import Scheme, cleared provisionally on a security deposit of &8377; 17.48 lakhs. Subsequently, after project completion, a refund claim was filed for the security deposit. The appellant supported their claim with a Chartered Accountant certificate asserting that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the balance sheet showed the amount as recoverable. Despite this evidence, the lower authorities rejected the claim. The main issue was whether the bar of unjust enrichment was applicable, given that no duty was paid at the time of importation, and the security deposit was not refundable. The appellant's submission of the certificate and the balance sheet supported the contention that unjust enrichment did not apply. The Tribunal cited a previous case to support the argument that in the case of cash securities deposit, the bar of unjust enrichment was not applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal held that unjust enrichment did not apply in this instance, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.