2014 (10) TMI 689 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Grants Appeal, Rejects Unjust Enrichment Claim

SIDDHI VINAYAK STEEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authority's decision regarding the refund claim of Rs. 12 lakhs. The appellant successfully ... Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- doctrine of unjust enrichment would be applicable in the case of deposit of disputed amount. However, the appellant have been able to show that throughout they have been showing this amount in as receivables from the customs department, in their books of account. This has been supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate dated 24-11-2006. The ld. advocate on instruction from the appellant also made a statement that at present position is unchanged. Further the department has not challenged the veracity of the Chartered Accountant certificate and the balance sheet produced by the appellant. Commissioner’s order is not sustainable and hence set aside - Following decision of UOI v. Jain Spinners Ltd. [1992 (9) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Appellant's challenge against the lower adjudicating authority's order.2. Application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in the case.3. Interpretation of Chartered Accountant certificate and balance sheet evidence.4. Comparison with relevant legal precedents like UOI v. Jain Spinners Ltd. and Pride Foramer v. CC.5. Decision on the appeal and consequential relief.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the lower authority's decision regarding the refund claim of Rs. 12 lakhs deposited in compliance with the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's directive. The dispute arose from the seizure of goods imported under DEEC license, leading to a writ petition and subsequent adjudication by the Commissioner (Import) resulting in confiscation, redemption, and penalties.2. The central issue revolved around the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to the refund claim. The lower authority credited the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund citing the appellant's failure to prove that the duty incidence wasn't passed on. The appellant contended that the goods were locally procured, and the amount was shown as receivable in their accounts, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate and balance sheet evidence.3. The appellant's argument relied on the Chartered Accountant certificate and balance sheet reflecting the Rs. 12 lakhs as customs duty deposit receivable from the customs department. The appellant consistently maintained this position, and the department did not dispute the authenticity of the evidence presented, similar to the findings in the Pride Foramer case.4. Drawing parallels with legal precedents such as UOI v. Jain Spinners Ltd. and Pride Foramer v. CC, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence like balance sheets and Chartered Accountant certificates in proving the non-passing of duty burden. The Tribunal's decision in Pride Foramer supported the appellant's case, leading to the conclusion that the burden of the disputed amount had not been transferred.5. Considering the evidence presented and the lack of challenge to its veracity, the Tribunal found the lower authority's decision unsustainable. Consequently, the Commissioner's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any necessary consequential relief, affirming the appellant's position on the refund claim.