Appellant's Duty Refund Claim Allowed on Appeal

The appellant's refund claim for excess duty was initially rejected on appeal by the revenue due to lack of evidence of duty burden not being passed on to the buyer. The Adjudicating Authority, however, found evidence from a Chartered Accountant certificate and extracts from the company's books of accounts that the duty burden was not transferred to the buyer. The Authority set aside the rejection, concluding unjust enrichment did not apply in safeguard duty cases. The appellant's appeals were allowed, and consequential relief was granted.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant imported aluminum foils with a duty initially at 35% safeguard duty, later reduced to 30%. The refund claim for the excess 5% duty was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority but rejected on appeal by the revenue. The rejection was due to the lack of evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyer. The appellant argued that in safeguard duty cases, the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the duty burden had not been passed on to the buyer based on the Chartered Accountant certificate provided. The appellant also produced extracts from the books of accounts supporting the non-passing of duty burden. The Adjudicating Authority set aside the rejection, stating that the appellant had proven the duty burden was not passed on, thus unjust enrichment did not apply.

The ld. AR contended that the Chartered Accountant certificate did not conclusively show that the duty burden was not passed on to the buyer, and the appellant failed to provide the balance sheet for verification. However, the appellant argued that as the refund claim was sanctioned within the same year, showing the amount receivable in the balance sheet was unnecessary. The appellant also emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority had acknowledged the non-passing of duty burden based on the evidence provided. The Adjudicating Authority's findings were supported by the appellant's submission of extracts from the company's books of accounts, certifying that the safeguard duty amount had not been included in the selling price of the goods. The appellant's argument that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to safeguard duty cases was accepted, and it was established that the duty burden had not been transferred to the buyer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---