9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 199 - AT - CustomsRefund of pre-deposit - refund claim filed by the CHA is proper or otherwise - applicability of principle of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - It is not the case that whether CHA is claiming the refund. Those are applications of refund filed by the CHA but ultimately the refund has to be given to the appellant only. Therefore, only on the ground that the application for refund was filed by CHA, refund cannot be denied which is otherwise due to the appellant. Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - Though appellant have paid the Revenue deposit but the same was appropriated against the duty demand. Therefore, the Revenue deposit has been converted into duty - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT has categorically held that all the refund has to pass through test of unjust enrichment. Therefore, in the present case also unjust enrichment is very much applicable for granting the refund of duty. There is a subsequent development that after appropriation of the refund against their demand, the same was settled in favour of the appellant in MOSAIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS C.C. -JAMNAGAR (PREV) 2020 (6) TMI 285 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD . Therefore, the amount appropriated needs to be refunded subject to passing of the test of unjust enrichment. The matter needs to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Refund of revenue deposit after final assessment. 2. Applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment to the refund of revenue deposit. Analysis: Issue 1: Refund of revenue deposit after final assessment The appellant imported Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) and deposited a 1% Revenue deposit for each bill of entry, totaling to ?1,80,87,271, in accordance with circular no. 11/2011-Cus dated 23.02.2001. The matter was referred to the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) for assessment. The appellant filed a refund claim of ?1,45,98,975 for the refund of the Revenue deposit after final assessment. The Assistant Commissioner initially held the refund claim to be maintainable, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the department's appeal against the refund. The appellant contended that the Revenue deposit should be automatically refunded after final assessment, citing relevant judgments supporting their claim. Issue 2: Applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment The appellant argued that the principle of unjust enrichment should not apply to the refund of the revenue deposit as it is a security deposit with the Customs department. They provided various judgments to support their stance. The appellant further highlighted that the disputed amount, which was appropriated against another proceeding, has been settled in their favor through a CESTAT order. They emphasized that the burden of duty was not passed on to customers, as evidenced by their balance sheets and CA certificate. The appellant also mentioned that they were entitled to consequential refund and interest as per the Customs Act, 1962. In the judgment, the Tribunal acknowledged that the refund claim filed by the CHA should ultimately benefit the appellant, and the principle of unjust enrichment must be considered for granting the refund. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue deposit had been converted into duty due to appropriation against a duty demand. However, considering subsequent developments where the amount was settled in favor of the appellant, the Tribunal ordered a remand to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order within three months. The appellant was granted the opportunity for a fair hearing and submission of necessary documents. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the need to consider the principle of unjust enrichment and ensure a fair assessment of the refund claim in light of the specific circumstances and legal precedents presented by both parties.
|
