Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 1038 - AT - CustomsPeriod of limitation - Refund of excess duty paid in lieu of provisional assessment - Duty not been paid under protest - Import of Polypropylene Granules - Held that:- the Assistant Commissioner while ordering provisional assessments stated that I order that the duty leviable on such goods to be assessed provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the procedure of provisional assessment under Section 18 be followed until further orders. From this it appears that the provisional assessment was done for such goods, i.e. for all Bills of Entry during the period 16.5.1995 onwards and not for any particular Bill of Entry. Even, the order finalizing the provisional assessments also refers to Ex-bond Bill of Entry No. 5 dt. 16.5.1995 and subsequent Bill of Entries. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the Bills of Entry for the period January 1996 to 9th August 1996 were assessed provisionally. As regards the period from 9.8.1996 to February 1997 it is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the appellants letter as a refund claim, there being no evidence to the effect that the letter was not received by the Department. Even the order of the Assistant Commissioner does not categorically state that the letter dt. 28.3.1997 was not received by the department. Therefore, since the department did not challenge the Commissioner (Appeals) order, the refund for this period is not time barred. The contention of the appellant is also that the Bombay High Court order dt. 5.5.1997 setting aside the order of finalization dt. 9.8.1996 restores the status of provisional assessment in respect of all Bills of Entry filed upto the date of the High Court order and till the conclusion of the fresh adjudication proceedings. This contention merits acceptance because the High Court directed to continue the Bank Guarantee. In this view of the matter, we hold that the assessments were provisional and the question of payment of duty under protest did not arise. Whether the test of unjust enrichment will apply to provisional assessments - Held that:- in view of the various judgments the test of unjust enrichment will not apply to provisional assessments before 13.7.2006 when sub-section(5) to Section 18 was introduced. Sub-Section 18(5) brought the concept of unjust enrichment into Section 18. Therefore, the test of unjust enrichment applies to refunds arising out of finalization of provisional assessments. - Decided against the appellant Whether the bar of unjust enrichment was crossed - Held that:- there does not appear to be any doubt that the value of the finished products included the duty element because, as admitted by the appellant, due to charging of full rate of customs duty their total cost had increased. It is a well accepted fact that the price of finished goods depends on various factors such as raw material cost, manufacturing cost, market conditions, demand and supply situation. Therefore only because they did not increase the price when they paid duty does not by itself lead to a conclusion that the incidence of duty was not passed to the customers. The appellant had argued before the Commissioner appeals that they were showing the refund claim as receivables in their books of account. However on being given time by the Commissioner, they failed to produce a Chartered Accountants certificate certifying that the element of duty was not included in the cost of their products. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be accepted that the duty element was not included in the price of the finished goods. Accordingly, the incidence of duty had been passed on to the consumers of the finished goods and therefore the bar of unjust enrichment was not crossed. - Decided against the appellant
|