2013 (5) TMI 189 - AT - Customs

Public Sector Company wins refund claim under Project Import Regulations for duty paid in 1982.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a Public Sector Company, in their claim for a refund of extra duty paid under Project Import Regulations in ... Refund on imports which was earlier banned but later on allowed pursuant to the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal - Department denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. - Held that – Tribunal is of the view that this is a very old matter relating to imports in 1982 and 30 years have elapsed since then and the matter is still not finalised. Taking on record the affidavit submitted by the appellant and after consideration of the report of Comptroller and Auditor General who audited the accounts of the Company. The matter requires to be decided finally in favour of the appellants. Issues:Claim for refund of extra duty paid under Project Import Regulations in 1982 denied on grounds of unjust enrichment.Analysis:The appellant, a Public Sector Company, sought refund of extra duty paid on imports in 1982 under Project Import Regulations. The issue of imports not being allowed initially was resolved by a Special Bench of the Tribunal, upheld by the Supreme Court. The appellant claimed that the extra duty, initially paid at a merit rate, should be refunded as it was not passed on to anyone. They provided a Chartered Accountant's Certificate and balance sheets showing the amounts as 'Receivables' from the department. The audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General also confirmed that the amounts were due but not yet received. The department denied the refunds citing unjust enrichment.The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order, referring to findings in the lower appellate authority's orders. However, the Tribunal noted the age of the matter, dating back to 1982, and the absence of provisions on unjust enrichment at that time. The Tribunal observed that had the refunds been granted earlier, the issue of unjust enrichment would not have arisen. The appellant submitted an affidavit stating the extra duty burden was not passed on and offered to compensate if found otherwise. They also presented a Chartered Accountant's Certificate and balance sheets indicating the amounts as 'Receivables' from the department. The audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General further supported the appellant's claim that the amounts were still due.Consequently, the Tribunal decided in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal for consequential refunds. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a final decision in the matter after considering the evidence presented by the appellant. The miscellaneous application filed for additional grounds was also disposed of in the appellant's favor.