Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1234 - CESTAT MUMBAIInterest on belated refund - doctrine of unjust enrichment - case of learned commissioner is that the adjudicating authority had not scrutinized the issue with the help of documentary evidences that the principles of bar of unjust enrichment had been crossed or not - HELD THAT:- For non-submission of proper documentary evidences, the adjudication order dated 05.10.2011 was set aside by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant also failed to produce any such evidences at this juncture to demonstrate that the excess paid duty had been borne by it and not passed on to any other person. Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that if the amount is refundable to the claimant, then the same may be credited to the CWC. However, the proviso clause contained therein permits grant of refund to the claimant/applicant, if the incidence of duty amount has not been passed on to any other person and the same has been borne by it - In this case, it is an admitted fact of record that the appellant did not submit the evidence either before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before this Tribunal to substantiate its claim that it had suffered the duty incidence by itself and not passed on the same to the buyers or any other person. Thus, as per the statutory mandates, the appellant should not be eligible for the benefit of refund and in such an eventuality; the amount of refund should appropriately be credited to the CWF. There are no substance in the appeals filed by the appellant that the amount of refund should be paid to it - appeal dismissed.
|