2024 (3) TMI 873 - AT - Customs

Refund including cash refund of DEPB/FPS scrips - denial on the ground that refund claims were hit by the principles of unjust enrichment - Determination of product prices based on the prevailing price for copper in the London Metal Exchange (LME). - HELD THAT - In M/S. VEDANTA LTD. VERSUS CC, TUTICORIN (VICE-VERSA) 2018 (6) TMI 528 - CESTAT CHENNAI , relied upon by the First Appellate Authority as well as the respondent, it is found that there is no change in the facts; admittedly, the price prevailing in LME was in no way under the control of the respondent and further, this Bench in the respondent s own case has categorically held that the final product price is based on the price prevailing in LME which has no relation to the cost of raw material including customs duty, for which reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN ORS VERSUS HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. 1997 (11) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT - This Bench has thus concluded that the stand of the Revenue insofar as unjust enrichment was concerned, had no merit. The Revenue has not been able to distinguish the above case nor is there any evidence placed on record to aver that there was any change in either facts or law, nor has the Revenue placed anything on record to state that the above final orders have been appealed to higher judicial forum and, if so, the status of the same. Hence the ratio of the above order squarely applies to the case on hand as well. The Revenue has not made out a case to disturb the finding of the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order. Consequently, Revenue s appeal lacks merit - the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in ordering a refund without unjust enrichment?

The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order in Appeal No. 01/2020-TTN dated 18.2.2020 passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore @ Trichy. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing copper products, filed refund claims for excess customs duty paid. The final product prices were based on London Metal Exchange (LME) prices, and the Deputy Director concluded that passing on the duty incidence did not arise. Show Cause Notices were issued, but the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund citing unjust enrichment. The First Appellate Authority allowed the respondent's appeal, leading to the Revenue's current appeal.

The main issue to be decided was whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in ordering a refund without unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found that the final product prices were LME-based, not related to the cost of raw materials or customs duty. Citing a Supreme Court decision, it was established that unjust enrichment did not apply in such cases. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's argument on unjust enrichment lacked merit based on the evidence and legal precedents presented.

The Tribunal carefully analyzed the facts and legal precedents, including Final Order Nos. 40781 to 40784/2018 and relevant case law. It was noted that the final product prices were determined based on LME prices, as confirmed by previous decisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to provide any new evidence or legal arguments to challenge the First Appellate Authority's decision. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, as it lacked merit.

(Pronounced in open court on 19.03.2024)