2019 (12) TMI 131 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - benefit of N/N. 102/2007-CUS dated 14/09/2007 - refund rejected on the ground that the unjust enrichment angle had not been verified by the Assistant Commissioner who had only relied upon the Chartered Accountant certificate - Board Circular No.06/2008-CUS dated 28/04/2008 - HELD THAT - The refund of SAD in terms of the N/N.102/2007-CUS is special case of refund available to the assessee in terms of the Notification itself. The same provides for refund of SAD in case of subsequent sale of imported goods on payment of VAT. As regards unjust enrichment Board itself has clarified the issue that Chartered Accountant certificate indicating non passing of duty to the customers is sufficient. Revenue is silent on the applicability of various Tribunal decisions to the facts of the present case which stands referred to and relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals). Neither have they said anything above Board Circular. It is well settled that Revenue cannot argue against the Board s Circular which are in favour of the assessee. There are no reasons to take a different view than the other taken by the Original Adjudicating Authority and as also Appellate Authority - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against rejection of refund claim based on unjust enrichment angle.

Analysis:
1. Imported Goods and Refund Claim: The respondents imported goods and paid Customs duty along with additional duty of Customs under a specific notification allowing refunds if goods are further sold on payment of VAT. The refund claim was adjudicated by the Original Adjudicating Authority, who sanctioned the refund after verifying all documents.

2. Grounds of Revenue's Appeal: Revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the refund on the grounds of unjust enrichment. Revenue argued that the Assistant Commissioner did not verify the unjust enrichment aspect thoroughly and only relied on the Chartered Accountant certificate provided by the assessee.

3. Commissioner (Appeals) Decision: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the refund, stating that the assessee was entitled to it under the specific notification. The Commissioner considered the Chartered Accountant certificate as sufficient to address the unjust enrichment angle, citing relevant Board Circulars and Tribunal decisions supporting this approach.

4. Second Appeal by Revenue: Unsatisfied with the Commissioner's decision, Revenue filed another appeal, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the Tribunal noted that the refund under the specific notification was a special case and the Board had clarified the sufficiency of the Chartered Accountant certificate in proving non-passing of duty to customers.

5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal rejected Revenue's appeal, aligning with the Original Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasized that Revenue did not challenge the Board Circulars or address the Tribunal decisions cited by the Commissioner (Appeals), highlighting that Revenue cannot argue against favorable Board Circulars.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the refund claim, emphasizing the sufficiency of the Chartered Accountant certificate in addressing unjust enrichment and the inapplicability of Revenue's arguments against established Board Circulars and Tribunal decisions.