2008 (5) TMI 73 - AT - Customs

Tribunal confirms refund to Consumer Welfare Fund under doctrine of unjust enrichment

The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, rejecting the appeal and confirming that the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to the ... Refund - held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to all cases of refund irrespective of whether the amount to be refunded is duty or otherwise (including redemption fine and penalty) - appellants have not submitted any documentary evidence to show that the incidence of the amounts in question has not been passed on to anybody else. Hence the amount of refund claimed has been rightly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund Issues Involved:1. Rejection of refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment under Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Interpretation of the Hon'ble High Court orders regarding the deposit.3. Applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to security deposits.4. Applicability of various case laws and Board's Circulars to the refund claim.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Rejection of Refund Claim on Grounds of Unjust EnrichmentThe appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,46,64,500/- following a Tribunal order. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim, citing that the provisions of Sections 27 and 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 were applicable. The appellants failed to produce documents to rebut the presumption that the incidence of the amount had been passed on to the customers, leading to the rejection based on unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.Issue 2: Interpretation of the High Court OrdersThe appellants argued that the authorities misread the Hon'ble High Court orders dated 25-10-1991 and 30-10-1991, which stated that if the appellants succeeded post-adjudication, they were entitled to a refund with interest. The High Court had clarified that the deposit was not duty under the Customs Act, 1962 but a security deposit. The Tribunal found that the deposit was indeed a security deposit for ensuring recovery of duty, fine, and penalty likely to be imposed on the appellants.Issue 3: Applicability of the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment to Security DepositsThe Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal v. UOI, which held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refunds following appellate orders. The Tribunal concluded that once the security deposit was appropriated towards duty and fine, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied. The appellants did not discharge the burden of rebuttal against the presumption of unjust enrichment, justifying the crediting of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund.Issue 4: Applicability of Various Case Laws and Board's CircularsThe appellants cited various case laws and Board's Circulars to support their claim. However, the Tribunal held that the cited cases, such as Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographic's India Ltd. and Commissioner v. Pane International Ltd., were not applicable as they dealt with different contexts. The Tribunal also noted that the Board's Circulars dated 2-1-2002 and 8-12-2004 pertained to pre-deposits under Section 129E and not to security deposits made during adjudication.The Tribunal emphasized that the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies universally to all refunds, including those involving security deposits and redemption fines, as supported by case laws like Sahakari Khand Udyog v. CCE and Solar Pesticides. The appellants did not provide evidence to show that the incidence of the amounts had not been passed on, leading to the rightful crediting of the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, rejecting the appeal and confirming that the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to the refund claim. The appellants failed to rebut the presumption of passing on the incidence, and thus, the refund was correctly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.