2015 (1) TMI 161 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Commissioner decided claim on basis of documents provided - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue as to whether the respondent has passed on the bar of unjust enrichment or not. As per the observations made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), I hold that on production of the CA s certificate and the balance sheet wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the amount is receivable from the department, therefore, the respondent has passed on the bar of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is not on merit hence the same is dismissed. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order allowing refund claim due to unjust enrichment.
2. Application of unjust enrichment to redemption fine and penalty.
3. Dispute over passing on the burden to consumers.
4. Interpretation of CA's certificate and balance sheet.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the order allowing the refund claim, contending that the bar of unjust enrichment had not been passed by the respondent. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the claim but later transferred it to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the alleged failure to pass the bar of unjust enrichment.

2. The core issue revolved around the application of the bar of unjust enrichment to redemption fine and penalty. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that unjust enrichment was not applicable in this case, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue argued that previous Tribunal decisions indicated the bar of unjust enrichment should apply to such cases, urging for a set aside or remand.

3. The respondent, supported by their counsel, maintained that the Commissioner's decision was correct. They presented documents, including a CA's certificate and the balance sheet, to demonstrate that the redemption fine and penalty were shown as receivable from the Revenue, indicating no passing on of the burden to consumers.

4. The impugned order detailed the findings of the Commissioner, emphasizing the absence of dispute regarding the payment made by the appellant. The Commissioner analyzed the balance sheet and CA's certificate, concluding that the respondent had indeed passed on the bar of unjust enrichment. The presence of specific details in the documents supported the decision to uphold the order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the appeal, the application of unjust enrichment, and the evidentiary support provided by the respondent to establish the non-passing of burden to consumers.