9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1156 - AT - CustomsRefund of revenue deposit and duty deposited by them at the time of importation - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment, non-production of original copies of bill of entry as well as TR-6 challans evidencing payment of duty. Unjust Enrichment - ground of rejection is based on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of MRPL 2011 (1) TMI 1155 - CESTAT, BANGALORE which has been reversed by the Karnataka High Court in the decision of MRPL 2015 (5) TMI 768 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - HELD THAT - This issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various High Courts and Tribunal in various cases, one being COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. 2008 (9) TMI 71 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that prior to the amendment dated 13.7.2006 in Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable because the said principle has been incorporated only with effect from 13.7.2006 and has been held by the High Court to be prospective and not retrospective - thus, the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case and denial of refund on this ground is not sustainable in law. Rejection on the ground of non-filing of the original document - HELD THAT - Non-filing of the original document is also not a valid ground for rejection of the refund because the appellant has given justification for non-filing the original document and has also submitted that it is not required under law to file the original document in view of the decision in the case of SAMBHAV ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN 2010 (9) TMI 513 - CESTAT, BANGALORE . Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund of excess customs duty paid, principles of unjust enrichment, non-production of original documents. Refund of Excess Customs Duty Paid: The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (A) regarding the excess customs duty paid by the appellant during the import of capital goods. The appellant's argument was that the assessment was provisional, and the revenue deposited should have been refunded suo moto at the finalization of assessment. The appellant contended that the law at the time of importation did not include provisions related to unjust enrichment, and therefore, the refund could not be rejected on that ground. The appellant cited various judicial precedents to support their argument, emphasizing that the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable before the amendment of Section 18 in 2006. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions, noting that the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable in this case, as confirmed by decisions from the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts. The Tribunal held that denial of the refund on the basis of unjust enrichment was not sustainable in law. Principles of Unjust Enrichment: The rejection of the refund claim was primarily based on the principle of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal highlighted that the issue of unjust enrichment had been settled by various High Courts and Tribunals, emphasizing that the principle was not applicable before the 2006 amendment to Section 18 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which reversed the Tribunal's decision in a similar case, establishing that the principle of unjust enrichment was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of the refund on the grounds of unjust enrichment was not legally sustainable. Non-Production of Original Documents: Another ground for rejecting the refund claim was the non-production of original documents, specifically the bill of entry and TR-6 challans. The appellant had submitted photocopies of these documents along with a Chartered Accountant certificate and an affidavit of indemnity for lost/misplaced challans. The Tribunal held that the non-filing of original documents was not a valid reason to reject the refund claim, especially since the appellant provided justifications for their absence. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's submission of supporting documents, including an affidavit and bond, along with the acknowledgment of excess customs duty paid, was sufficient to support their claim. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the rejection of the refund on the basis of non-production of original documents was not justified in law. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, based on the findings related to the refund of excess customs duty paid, the principles of unjust enrichment, and the non-production of original documents.
|
