2015 (12) TMI 724 - AT - Customs

Appeals Granted in Refund Case Emphasizing Documentation & Unjust Enrichment Concerns

Automark Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur

The Member (T) allowed all three appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellant in a case involving refund claims related to 4% SAD. The judgment ... Denial of refund claim - SAD - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- Appellant has produced copy of the invoices which clearly indicate that credit of 4% SAD is not admissible. I also find that the invoices indicate the basic value and 12.5% VAT. It does not indicate separately SAD or any other component of import duty. In the accounts, the appellant has shown the 4% amount of SAD as receivable under assets. The Chartered Accountant has also certified the same. - appellant is not a registered dealer and has not sold the entire consignment on the bill of entry itself, but the goods have been sold on the invoices and the invoices indicate the price at which the goods are being sold. It also indicates the amount of VAT that is being paid. Further, the Chartered Accountant has given the requisite certificate. The balance sheet shows the amount of 4% SAD as receivable under the asset category. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the 4% SAD has been passed on to the consumer. The bar of unjust enrichment will not be applicable - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:Refund claim related to 4% SAD - Transfer to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27 of the Customs Act - Unjust enrichment - Documentary evidence submission - Chartered Accountant's certificate substantiation.Analysis:The judgment addresses the common issue of refund claims concerning 4% SAD, which were transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment concerns. The appellant's case was processed, and the refund claim was initially found admissible but later transferred to the Fund. The main contention was the lack of documentary evidence and substantiation of the Chartered Accountant's certificate.Upon hearing both sides, the Member (T) analyzed the case. The appellant provided copies of invoices showing that credit of 4% SAD was not admissible. The invoices displayed basic value and 12.5% VAT but did not separately indicate SAD or other import duty components. The appellant accounted for the 4% SAD as receivable under assets, certified by a Chartered Accountant. The objection raised was the absence of invoices detailing the goods' prices and duty amounts, ensuring no duty was passed on to customers. Despite not being a registered dealer and selling goods on invoices, the appellant demonstrated the sales prices and VAT paid. The Chartered Accountant's certificate and balance sheet further supported the non-passing of 4% SAD to consumers.The Member (T) noted a previous Tribunal order in the appellant's favor for a similar refund claim, emphasizing the absence of unjust enrichment in the current case. Consequently, all three appeals were allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.This judgment clarifies the requirements for refund claims involving SAD, emphasizing the need for proper documentation, non-passing of duty to consumers, and certification by professionals to establish admissibility and avoid unjust enrichment concerns.