2020 (1) TMI 360 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - It was observed by the lower authorities that though the appellant had submitted CA certificate but the books of account were not submitted - HELD THAT - The unjust-enrichment has to be examined only at the time of release of the refund even as on today it is to be ascertained that whether the incidence of duty has been passed on and otherwise. The appellant is not able to submit any books of account from which it cannot be ascertained that the amount for which the refund has been shown as receivable which can establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on. Validity of CA certificate - HELD THAT - The CA certificate is not a concluding document that shows the incidence was not passed on but it is based on the books of account. In absence of any books of account for the current period, the CA certificate cannot alone help the appellant to overcome the aspect of unjust-enrichment - in the present case both the CA certificates are of very old period and for the purpose of unjust-enrichment the present position is relevant for which neither any CA certificate was produced nor any books of account - Therefore, in absence of providing books of account by the appellant, the aspect of unjust-enrichment is not established. Refund cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on unjust-enrichment grounds based on CA certificate and absence of submitted books of account.

Analysis:
The appellant's refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner due to unjust-enrichment concerns. The lower authorities noted the submission of a CA certificate by the appellant but highlighted the absence of submitted books of account. The appellant appealed against the Commissioner's decision.

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant's counsel argued that the CA certificate certified the non-passing of duty incidence to others, despite the lack of submitted books of account. He relied on various judgments to support the argument.

Revenue's Argument:
The Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing that the CA certificate alone cannot prove non-passing of duty incidence. The Revenue stressed the importance of submitted books of account for verification.

Judgment:
The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and reviewed the records. The key issue was whether the appellant's refund was affected by unjust-enrichment. Despite the CA certificates submitted, the appellant failed to provide current books of account. The Tribunal highlighted the relevance of current information for assessing unjust-enrichment at the time of refund release.

The Tribunal emphasized that the CA certificate, based on books of account, could not alone establish non-passing of duty incidence without current book submissions. Due to the absence of current books of account, the aspect of unjust-enrichment remained unproven. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions as legally sound and correct, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant's reliance on old CA certificates and lack of current books of account did not support overcoming the unjust-enrichment aspect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.