2024 (12) TMI 1468 - AT - Customs

Refund claim of excess CVD paid in respect of 133 Bills of Entry - payment was initially made under protest - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - In support of the refund claim, appellant have furnished a certificate dated 13.02.2017 issued by M/s. Prakash Thiagarajan (CA) showing the due amount in the Company s Balance sheet as Customs Duty Deposit Receivable under Long Term Loans . Further, appellant also furnished copy of the balance sheet for financial year 2015-16, where they have accounted the said amount under Long Term Loans and Advances under Assets . As per the Final Order of the Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Micromax Informatics Limited 2023 (9) TMI 1267 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , once the certificate is produced from Chartered Accountant with Balance sheet, onus stands shifted upon the department to falsify those documents before concluding a presumptive finding. Similarly, Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Apple India Ltd 2015 (1) TMI 573 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT also held that once assessee has produced certificate from Chartered Accountant stating that the assessee has not passed the burden directly or indirectly, it is sufficient to rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment. Conclusion - Production of a Chartered Accountant's certificate and relevant financial documentation are sufficient to rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant is entitled to a refund of the excess CVD paid. Considering the decisions of the Hon ble High Court and Tribunal the appeal is sustainable - appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of the excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid under protest.
Whether the issue of unjust enrichment has been adequately addressed, and if the appellant has successfully demonstrated that the burden of the duty was not passed on to the customers.
Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration on the issue of unjust enrichment.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Refund of Excess CVD

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant claimed entitlement to a concessional CVD rate of 1% under Sl.No.263A in Notification No.21/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. The adjudicating authority initially upheld this claim.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the adjudicating authority had already determined the appellant's eligibility for the concessional CVD rate, and the refund was sanctioned based on this finding.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant provided a certificate from a Chartered Accountant and relevant balance sheet entries to support their claim for a refund.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the appellant had fulfilled the requirements for the concessional CVD rate and was therefore entitled to a refund of the excess CVD paid.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's argument that the refund was not justified due to insufficient documentation was not upheld, as the appellant provided adequate evidence supporting their claim.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund of the excess CVD paid.

Issue 2: Unjust Enrichment

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 28C and 28D of the Customs Act, 1962, and relevant case law concerning the presumption of unjust enrichment and the burden of proof.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized that once the appellant produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate and relevant balance sheet entries, the burden shifted to the department to disprove the claim of no unjust enrichment.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant provided a Chartered Accountant's certificate and a comparison chart showing no change in the price of goods before and after the payment of CVD at the higher rate, indicating that the duty burden was not passed on to customers.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal principle that a Chartered Accountant's certificate, unless disproved, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's reliance on other tribunal decisions was not persuasive, as the appellant's evidence was deemed sufficient.
Conclusions: The court found that the appellant had successfully rebutted the presumption of unjust enrichment.

Issue 3: Remand by Commissioner (Appeals)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand cases for reconsideration.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court determined that the remand was unnecessary as the issue of unjust enrichment had been adequately addressed by the appellant's evidence.
Key Evidence and Findings: The evidence provided by the appellant was sufficient to address the unjust enrichment issue without the need for further reconsideration.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal principle that remand is not warranted when the evidence on record is sufficient to decide the issue.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court found the appellant's arguments more compelling and consistent with established legal principles.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Once the certificate is produced from Chartered Accountant with Balance sheet, onus stands shifted upon the department to falsify those documents before concluding a presumptive finding."
Core Principles Established: The production of a Chartered Accountant's certificate and relevant financial documentation can effectively rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment under the Customs Act, 1962.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The appellant is entitled to a refund of the excess CVD paid, and the issue of unjust enrichment has been adequately addressed without the need for a remand.

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the refund of excess CVD paid and dismissing the remand order concerning unjust enrichment. The judgment reinforces the evidentiary value of Chartered Accountant certificates in rebutting unjust enrichment claims.

← Previous Next →