Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1061 - AT - CustomsRefund of Customs Duty - burden of duty is transferred to the buyer of the goods or not - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the Original Authority has granted the refund based on this Tribunal s Judgment 2017 (3) TMI 700 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , without examining the same from the angle of unjust enrichment as provided under the Customs Act, 1962, against which the Department filed an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the Appellants did not succeed in establishing their case against the presumption provided under Sec.28D and in consequence, the amount of refund granted has to be held erroneously granted to the Appellants which is liable to be recovered from them as per law. The entire issue of whether they were entitled to exemption or not, has already been decided by this Tribunal and the only limited issue was the consequential refund available to them. The Original Authority has granted the same without examining the principle of unjust enrichment, whereas, the Appellate Authority has set aside the said Order holding that Appellants have not been able to cross the bar of unjust enrichment by proving that they have not passed on the incidence of duty. In the interest of justice, the matter needs to be referred back to the Original Authority to go through the documents furnished by them and any other additional evidence or documents which he might require to come to the conclusion whether the principle of unjust enrichment is invokable in the instant case or otherwise. It is however to be noted that merely CA Certificate per se cannot be the sole ground for proving that they have not passed on the incidence of duty, if the sanctioning authority is not satisfied with the documents and he may also rely in addition on any other documents in order to come to the conclusion as to whether duty incidence has been passed on to customer or not in the facts of the case. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of the refund claim by the Original Authority, the subsequent grant of refund by the Original Authority, the disagreement of the Department with the sanction of refund due to non-examination of compliance with the principle of unjust enrichment, the failure of the Appellants to submit proper documents to prove non-passing of duty burden, reliance on CA Certificate by the Appellant, invocation of the principle of unjust enrichment by the Department, and the determination of whether the Appellants have passed the bar of unjust enrichment. Issue 1: Rejection and subsequent grant of refund: The Appellants initially had their refund claim rejected, but the Original Authority later granted the refund based on a Tribunal's Final Order. The Department disagreed with the refund sanction due to non-examination of unjust enrichment compliance. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Original Authority failed to examine the legal requirements under the Customs Act, specifically Section 27(2)(a) and 28D. The Appellants failed to provide sufficient documents to prove non-passing of duty burden. Issue 2: Argument based on CA Certificate: The Appellant's Advocate relied on a CA Certificate stating that the duty amount was not passed on to the customer. The Appellants argued that the issue of unjust enrichment was not raised by the Original Authority initially. They also mentioned difficulties in submitting the CA Certificate within the specified time frame. The Department reiterated the grounds for invoking unjust enrichment. Issue 3: Application of unjust enrichment principle: The main question was whether the principle of unjust enrichment applied and if the Appellants had met the requirements. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the Appellants did not establish their case against the presumption under Section 28D. The Appellate Authority set aside the refund granted by the Original Authority due to failure to prove non-passing of duty burden. Issue 4: Remand to Original Authority: The judgment set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority. The Appellants' submission of the CA Certificate was considered, and the matter was referred back to the Original Authority for further examination. The Original Authority was directed to decide on the matter within three months, considering all relevant documents and giving the Appellants a chance for a Personal Hearing. This judgment highlights the importance of proving non-passing of duty burden to establish entitlement to a refund, especially in cases involving the principle of unjust enrichment under the Customs Act. The reliance on CA Certificates and the need for thorough examination of all relevant documents by the authorities are crucial aspects in such legal proceedings.
|