2016 (7) TMI 357 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess duty paid on actual consumption of bunkers on the vessel during coastal trade - Unjust enrichment - Held that - The main contention raised by the appellants is that the respondents did not furnish a Chartered Accountant Certificate to establish that the incidence of duty has not passed on. On examination of records, it is seen that this submission is factually incorrect. The respondents have furnished the Chartered Accountants Certificate dated 10-03-2012. Further, the Board Circulars adverted to by the Consultant appearing for respondent clearly states that refund claim can be made by the Steamer agent. - Refund allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to refund sanctioned to respondents by Revenue, application of doctrine of unjust enrichment, eligibility for refund by Port agents, requirement of Chartered Accountants Certificate to establish non-passing of duty incidence.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by Revenue challenging the refund sanctioned to the respondents. The case revolved around the conversion of a vessel from foreign run to coastal run and the subsequent refund claimed by the Steamer Agent for excess duty paid. The main contention raised by Revenue was the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment, arguing that the duty incidence might have been passed on. The Revenue also questioned the eligibility of the Port agents, who facilitated the conversion, to claim the refund.

2. The Revenue contended that the respondents failed to establish that the duty incidence had not been passed on, as required by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue raised concerns about the lack of a Chartered Accountants Certificate to prove non-passing of duty incidence. However, the respondents had submitted a certificate from a Chartered Accountant stating that the duty incidence had not been transferred to any other party directly or indirectly.

3. The Tribunal examined the submissions from both sides and found that the Chartered Accountants Certificate provided by the respondents did establish that the duty incidence had not been passed on. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to relevant Board Circulars, which allowed the Steamer Agent to claim a refund in such cases. The Tribunal also relied on a previous judgment in the appellant's own case, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellant.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue, citing that the impugned order did not warrant any interference. The decision was based on the findings that the duty incidence had not been passed on, as evidenced by the Chartered Accountants Certificate, and that the relevant Circulars supported the refund claim by the Steamer Agent. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the precedent set in the appellant's previous case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the refund sanctioned to the respondents, emphasizing the importance of providing necessary documentation, such as a Chartered Accountants Certificate, to establish non-passing of duty incidence and following relevant Circulars governing refund claims by Steamer Agents.