2016 (11) TMI 986 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim - EDD - 1% extra duty deposit - unjust enrichment - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of C.C., Bangalore Vs. Ecomaster (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (1) TMI 389 - CESTAT, BANGALORE as the issue is squarely covered. It was held in the case that the amount paid by the assessee was not Customs duty on any imported items but was only a deposit of extra amount. They are asking refund of the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a correct view that the amount deposited is more than the duty amount and the same is refundable. EDD is in the form of security and the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the case of refund of EDD - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim based on 'unjust enrichment' principle for Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) paid during import of Mechanical seals from related foreign suppliers.

Analysis:
1. Facts and Background: The appellant imported Mechanical seals from related companies and paid 1% EDD for imports, leading to provisional assessment of Bills of Entry. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on grounds of 'unjust enrichment', which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal.

2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant contended that EDD was paid as a security deposit during SVB investigation, not as Customs duty, and hence, refund should be automatic upon finalization of assessment. They argued that EDD is not covered under Customs Act and Tariff Act, citing relevant Circulars and judicial precedents to support their stance.

3. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue maintained that the appellant must meet all refund conditions under Section 27 of the Customs Act, citing a Supreme Court judgment on 'unjust enrichment'. They emphasized the need for proof that duty burden was not passed on and that the refund amount was accounted for properly.

4. Tribunal's Decision: After reviewing submissions and cited judgments, the Tribunal found the appellant's case aligned with precedents stating EDD as a security deposit exempt from 'unjust enrichment'. Referring to a specific case, the Tribunal highlighted that the refundable amount exceeded the duty paid, justifying the refund claim. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision favored the appellant's argument that EDD, being a security deposit, did not fall under 'unjust enrichment' principles for refund. By citing relevant case law and emphasizing the nature of EDD, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the lower authorities' decisions and granting the appeal with appropriate relief.