2008 (9) TMI 831 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Refund Claims in Captive Consumption Cases, Emphasizes Evidence

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN Versus PRINCE ALLOYS (P) LTD.

The Tribunal held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply in cases of captive consumption where imported inputs are used in manufacturing ... Refund - Unjust enrichment Issues:1. Applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in cases of captive consumption.2. Burden of proof regarding passing on the incidence of duty in cases of captive consumption.3. Consideration of evidence to determine the passing on of duty in captive consumption scenarios.Issue 1: Applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in cases of captive consumption:The judgment addresses the issue of unjust enrichment in the context of captive consumption of goods. It refers to various decisions by different High Courts and the Supreme Court to establish the interpretation of Section 27 of the Act regarding the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal follows the reasoning of the High Court of Bombay, holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply when imported inputs are used in the manufacture of another product and not sold to any buyer. The judgment emphasizes that the refund claim should be considered without the burden of unjust enrichment if the duty has not been passed on directly to any buyer.Issue 2: Burden of proof regarding passing on the incidence of duty in cases of captive consumption:The Original Authority had denied the refund claim, stating that mere production of invoices was not sufficient to prove that the duty incidence had not been passed on. The learned SDR argued that more evidence was required from the assessee to demonstrate non-passing on of duty incidence. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, it was contended that even in cases of captive consumption, the aspect of unjust enrichment should apply. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the importer can show proof that the duty incidence on raw materials has not been passed on, especially in cases of captive consumption.Issue 3: Consideration of evidence to determine the passing on of duty in captive consumption scenarios:The judgment highlights the importance of evidence in determining whether the duty incidence has been passed on in cases of captive consumption. The Advocate for the assessee presented evidence, including invoices and other documents, to support the claim that duty had not been passed on to the consumer. The Tribunal accepted this evidence, noting that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to rebut the importer's assertion. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the evidence produced by the importer to be sufficient, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals and upholding the refund claims.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the interpretation of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in cases of captive consumption, the burden of proof required to establish non-passing on of duty incidence, and the significance of evidence in supporting refund claims in such scenarios.