2018 (7) TMI 1681 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - various submissions of appellant not examined - principles of Natural Justice - Held that - From the fact and arguments adduced, it is quite apparent that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the various submissions made by the appellant and also the case laws cited for their relevancy in the factual matrix - appeal allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for appropriate order following the due process of law.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of refund based on unjust enrichment under Section 18(5)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower adjudicating authority denied the refund claim due to the appellant's failure to provide evidence regarding unjust enrichment as per Section 18(5)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were exported under Notification No. 116/2008-Cus. dated 31.10.2008, and the refund was deposited into the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellant argued that the impugned order did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and did not follow established judicial proceedings. The appellant cited various case laws to support their position, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment as a rebuttal presumption. The appellant contended that once they proved that the duty incidence was not passed on to the consumer, it was the department's duty to rebut the evidence. The appellant also referenced specific cases to support this argument.

During the hearing, the appellant highlighted that the appellate authority analyzed the relevant contracts for the export and realized CFR price, indicating that the duty incidence was passed on to the buyer. The appellant admitted during a personal hearing that they received USD 70.00 PMT from the buyer, further supporting the passing on of duty incidence. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately consider the appellant's submissions and relevant case laws. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision following due process. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to resolve the issue within three months from the receipt of the order, considering the age of the case (2009 Appeal).

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of consideration given to the appellant's arguments and case laws by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the grant of refund based on unjust enrichment. The Tribunal's remand order emphasized the importance of following due process and addressing the submissions made by the parties in reaching a decision on the refund claim.