Unjust Enrichment in Customs Refunds: Chartered Accountant certificate accepted where no evidence showed duty incidence was passed on.

Recovery of earlier sanctioned refund of additional duty of customs was stated to be unsustainable where the Revenue could not produce documentary evidence that the 4% CVD burden had been passed on to buyers. The assessee's Chartered Accountant's certificate, confirming that the duty incidence had not been passed on, was treated as acceptable under the departmental circular on refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. In the absence of other material showing unjust enrichment, the cited Supreme Court ruling was considered factually distinguishable and inapplicable. On those facts, unjust enrichment was not established and the recovery demand failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand raised for recovery of the earlier sanctioned refund of additional duty of customs was sustainable in the absence of sufficient evidence that the burden of 4% CVD had been passed on to buyers, and whether unjust enrichment was established.

Analysis: The Revenue failed to substantiate, by documentary evidence, that the importer had passed on the burden of additional duty of customs to customers. The assessee produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate stating that the 4% CVD burden had not been passed on. The departmental circular concerning refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. permitted acceptance of such a certificate where no other material showed unjust enrichment. In these circumstances, the reliance placed on the cited Supreme Court decision was found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; unjust enrichment was not proved and the recovery demand was unsustainable.

---