2015 (2) TMI 337 - AT - Customs

Tribunal reverses Commissioner's decision on unjust enrichment in refund claim, emphasizing need for strong evidence

DENSO FARIDABAD PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA

The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (Appeals) order, finding the appellant had passed the bar of unjust enrichment in a refund claim. The appellant's ... Denial of refund claim - Provisional clearance - Unjust enrichment - Whether the appellant has passed the bar of unjust enrichment or not - Held that:- when the appellant has shown the revenue deposit as receivable and the same has been certified by the CA, the appellant has passed the bar of unjust enrichment. Hence, there is no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Unjust enrichment in refund claim.Analysis:The appellant appealed against an order where the Commissioner (Appeals) found them ineligible for a refund of revenue deposit due to unjust enrichment. The main issue was whether the appellant had passed the bar of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner noted that the appellant provided a certificate from a Chartered Accountant stating that unjust enrichment did not apply as the duty was not passed on to buyers. However, the Commissioner found the appellant lacking in supporting documents. The appellant argued that they submitted balance sheets from the period of deposit to refund, showing the amount as receivable from the department. Additionally, the Chartered Accountant's certificate supported the appellant's claim. The Tribunal held that the appellant had indeed passed the bar of unjust enrichment by demonstrating the revenue deposit as receivable and supported by the CA's certification. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.In this case, the central issue revolved around unjust enrichment concerning a refund claim. The appellant's contention was that they had not passed on the duty element to buyers, supported by a certificate from a Chartered Accountant. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found the appellant lacking in evidence to substantiate their claim. The Tribunal considered the appellant's submission of balance sheets showing the revenue deposit as receivable and certified by the Chartered Accountant. This evidence led the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant had indeed passed the bar of unjust enrichment, overturning the impugned order. The decision highlights the importance of providing supporting documentation to establish unjust enrichment in refund claims, emphasizing the role of financial records and professional certifications in such matters.Overall, the judgment underscores the significance of meeting the criteria for unjust enrichment in refund claims. The appellant successfully demonstrated through balance sheets and a Chartered Accountant's certificate that the duty element was not passed on to buyers, thereby satisfying the requirement. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief showcases the importance of presenting clear and compelling evidence to support claims of unjust enrichment in such legal proceedings.