2007 (8) TMI 192 - AT - Customs

Customs refund claim appeal allowed as Tribunal finds no unjust enrichment, directs refund verification

The appellants successfully appealed the rejection of their refund claim for excess duty charged by Customs authorities. Despite lower authorities citing ... Refund of excess amount of duty paid – Unjust enrichment is not applicable because appellant collected only the contracted amount from customers, as evident from ;the Ledger, the invoice and the contract – Refund sought is beyond the contracted price, hence admissible Issues:Refund claim rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding a refund claim for excess duty charged by Customs authorities at the time of clearance of imported goods. The appellants had entered into a contract for supply and installation of a DTS System with Air Headquarters. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing unjust enrichment. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the evidence provided by the appellants to prove that they did not pass on the refund amount to their customers. Despite this, the Commissioner (Appeals) again rejected the claim, leading to the appellants filing an appeal.The appellants argued that they had collected the contracted amount as per the agreement with Air Headquarters. They presented the invoice and contract as evidence. The Tribunal had specifically directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to review the ledger account to determine if the appellants received more than the contracted amount from the government. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to dispute that the appellants had only received the contracted amount, as shown by the ledger, invoice, and contract. Therefore, the Commissioner's conclusion that the total amount received included the customs duty paid at importation was unfounded. The excess duty paid was beyond the contracted price and was deemed refundable to the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.The judgment was delivered on 31-8-2007, with the order dictated and pronounced in open court.