TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
This article analyses the CESTAT Mumbai ruling in M/s Akasaka Electronic Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Mumbai - 2026 (4) TMI 711 - CESTAT MUMBAI, examining the automatic refund of provisional anti-dumping duty, the limits of the unjust enrichment doctrine.
Background & Issue
The Appellant imported Copper Clad Laminates and paid provisional Anti-Dumping Duty ('ADD') of Rs. 27,51,395/- on Bills of Entry. The levy was withdrawn by the Central Government on 22 January 2004. Rule 21(3) of the ADD Rules, 1995 mandates that any ADD collected between imposition and withdrawal 'shall be refunded' placing the obligation squarely on the Revenue, with no requirement for an importer's application.
After waiting a year without a suo motu refund, the Appellant filed a claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. This was rejected across two rounds of litigation on the sole ground that the duty was reflected as 'expenditure' in the Profit & Loss Account rather than as a 'receivable,' which the authorities treated as evidence of unjust enrichment.
Key Legal Questions
Whether Rule 21(3) requires an importer to file a formal refund application, or whether the obligation is automatic upon the Revenue.
Whether accounting treatment of a duty amount as 'expenditure' is sufficient to establish that the incidence of duty was passed on to buyers, attracting the unjust enrichment bar.
Decision
The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, on four key findings:
(i) No Application Required. The mandatory language of Rule 21(3) 'shall be refunded' is self-executing. The appellant was compelled to file an application only because the Revenue failed to comply with its statutory duty. The unjust enrichment test under Section 11B has no application where refund is mandated by the ADD Rules themselves.
(ii) Accounting Treatment = Unjust Enrichment. The Tribunal undertook a detailed analysis of ICAI Accounting Standards, which classify amounts recoverable subject to uncertain future events as 'Contingent Assets' which must not be recognised or disclosed in financial statements. Accordingly, the non-reflection of the duty as a 'receivable' was entirely compliant with accounting norms and could not be treated as evidence of passing on the duty burden. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal placed extensive reliance on its earlier decision in M/s. Ema Lubes Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Pune-I - 2023 (12) TMI 674 - CESTAT MUMBAI, authored by the same Member (Judicial). That decision had exhaustively examined the ICAI's study papers and Accounting Standards on unjust enrichment and held that the maintenance of accounts whether reflecting a duty as 'receivable' or as 'expenditure', is an altogether separate question from whether the incidence of duty was factually passed on to another person. The Tribunal reaffirmed that principle in the present case, making clear that authorities cannot short-circuit the unjust enrichment inquiry by pointing solely to a book entry.
(iii) Burden of Proof Is Not Absolute. Section 11B does not require every refund claimant to prove, in all cases, that duty was not passed on. The burden arises only when Revenue makes a specific, evidence-based allegation that duty was passed on. Absent such an allegation, a refund cannot be denied. The Tribunal aptly analogised: 'when a person is accused of murder, at least the victim must be dead.'
(iv) CA Certificate Is Valid Evidence. The CA certificate certifying non-passing of duty incidence ought to be accepted as conclusive evidence per CBIC Circular No. 06/2008-Customs and the Supreme Court's ruling in Organon India Ltd (2008). The Commissioner (Appeals)' reliance on Allied Photographic India Ltd (2004) was misplaced that decision only held that uniformity of price is not conclusive of non-passing, not that CA certificates are inadmissible.
Conclusion
The Akasaka ruling settles an important point of law: the doctrine of unjust enrichment is a safeguard against windfall, not a tool for routine denial of refunds that the statute itself mandates. Where Rule 21(3) of the ADD Rules directs refund, the Revenue's obligation is unconditional. Engrafting the unjust enrichment test onto such a provision is contrary to the plain text of the law.
The ruling equally corrects a long-standing misapplication of accounting entries as a proxy for economic burden. The ICAI's own Accounting Standards prohibit recognition of contingent assets in financial statements; an importer who follows those standards cannot then be penalised for doing so. Unjust enrichment must be established on evidence of actual passing on of duty, not inferred from a book entry made in compliance with statutory norms.
Taken together, these findings restore the doctrine of unjust enrichment to its proper and limited role, while reinforcing that a mandatory statutory refund cannot be withheld on grounds the legislature never contemplated.