2014 (12) TMI 940 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Availment of the benefit of customs duty under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 - Confiscation of goods - redemption fine - Held that - there is no finding recorded by the Revenue that the assessee has passed on the burden of duty to anybody else. In view of the facts admitted in the impugned order, I find that the appellant has used the machinery for their own use. Secondly, on the ground of non-filing of the requisite original document, these are only meant for verification of the refund claim. From the order of the learned Commissioner of July, 2009, it is admitted fact by the Revenue that the appellant had deposited ₹ 5,23,039/- in pursuance to rejection of his claim for exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., which was finally allowed by the said order in July, 2009 and adjustment of duty, etc. was done from the amount of the said deposit. It is also observed in the order in favour of the appellant that balance amount to be refunded to importer on the basis of application to be made by the importer to the proper officer . In the facts and circumstances, there is nothing else to verify in law except the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which I hold is not applicable under law and facts and circumstances of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on ground of unjust enrichment upheld by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III.

Analysis:
The appellant imported medical equipment under a customs duty exemption notification but faced rejection of exemption claim, leading to payment of duty, fine, and penalty. Upon remand by the Tribunal, the duty amount was reduced, and the appellant became eligible for a refund. However, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing unjust enrichment as the burden of duty was allegedly passed on. The appellant contended that as a charitable trust, the equipment was for personal use, and no transfer occurred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection due to lack of original documents, emphasizing the Customs Refund Application Regulations. The appellant appealed, arguing that demanding documents at this stage was unnecessary given the admitted duty payment and benefit entitlement. Citing precedents, the appellant sought refund based on provisional assessment outcomes and non-applicability of unjust enrichment. The Revenue insisted on document compliance for refunds.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duty burden transfer and acknowledged the appellant's personal use of the machinery. Emphasizing that original documents were for verification purposes, the Tribunal noted the admitted deposit and subsequent adjustments, concluding that unjust enrichment did not apply. The appeal was allowed, directing the refund with interest within 30 days. The request for costs was rejected. The miscellaneous application was also disposed of.