2015 (10) TMI 2328 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund of duty Provisional assessment under Section 18 Burden of proof could not be proved Appellant contends principal of unjust enrichment not applicable as refund claim is prior to amendment of Section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 Certificate of Chartered Accountant produced as a proof Revenue contends that it is an old case and documents were not produced to lower authorities - Matter should not be remanded Held That - Appellants should be given an opportunity to place the document before lower authorities in interest of justice Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment in the context of provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad arose from a common order regarding the importation of Copper Ore Concentrate by the appellants, which was used in manufacturing Copper Cathodes at their factory. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty under provisional assessment as per Section 18 of the Customs Act. Subsequently, they paid excess duty and sought a refund. However, the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claims, stating that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the duty incidence had not been passed on to another party.

The Learned Advocate representing the appellants argued that one of the refund claims was from a period predating the amendment of Section 18, and thus, the principles of unjust enrichment should not apply. Referring to a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, the Advocate contended that they had submitted a Chartered Accountant's Certificate to prove that the duty incidence was not transferred to another party. The Authorised Representative for the Revenue countered by stating that the documents were not presented to the lower authorities during the initial proceedings.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, concluded that the question of unjust enrichment in cases of provisional assessment before the Section 18 amendment was a legal issue that could be addressed at the current stage. Noting that the appellants were unable to submit the Chartered Accountant Certificate earlier due to the unjust enrichment argument, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the Adjudicating authority. The purpose of the remand was to allow the appellants to present the necessary documents and evidence, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing before a new decision is made.

In light of the above analysis, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad set aside the previous orders and remanded the cases to the Adjudicating authority for a reevaluation based on the legal considerations and evidence presented by the appellants. The Tribunal stressed the importance of providing a proper opportunity for the appellants to present their case before any new decision is reached. Consequently, all appeals filed by the appellants were allowed for further proceedings through remand.