Customs duty refund allowed after nine years despite non-fulfilment of export obligation under CENVAT Credit rules

CESTAT Hyderabad allowed appellant's appeal for cash refund of differential customs duty (basic customs duty + CVD + SAD) paid after nine years due to non-fulfilment of export obligation. The tribunal held that since CENVAT Credit could not be utilized and payment was made from appellant's own funds, no unjust enrichment applied. Following precedent in OSI Systems case, the tribunal rejected Revenue's arguments and directed the Adjudicating Authority to grant refund with interest calculated from initial filing date.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of refund claim under Sec.142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 for CVD+SAD paid post-GST implementation.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain appeals against orders passed under Sec.142(3) of the CGST Act.
3. Applicability of the Unjust Enrichment clause under Section 11B(2) of the CEA, 1944.

Summary:

1. Eligibility of Refund Claim:
The Appellant, M/s Sri Chakra Poly Plast India Pvt Ltd., could not fulfill the export obligation for capital goods procured under an EPCG License and paid the Customs Duty, including CVD+SAD, amounting to Rs.12,30,146/-. Since this payment was made under the GST regime, they could not avail Cenvat Credit and filed a refund claim under Sec.142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Lower Authorities dismissed this claim, leading the Appellant to approach the Tribunal.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The Larger Bench in the case of Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd concluded that appeals against orders passed under Sec.142(3) of the CGST Act lie with the Tribunal. It was clarified that claims for refund after 01.07.2017 must be disposed of under the existing law, i.e., Chapter V of the Finance Act and the Central Excise Act, thus affirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

3. Applicability of the Unjust Enrichment Clause:
The Adjudicating Authority initially rejected the refund claim citing that Sec.142(3) of the CGST Act does not apply as the duties paid were not eligible for Cenvat Credit under the existing law. The Tribunal, however, noted that the clause of unjust enrichment does not apply since the payment was made almost nine years after the initial imports, making it impossible for the duty burden to be passed on.

Case Laws Referenced:
- Mithila Drugs Pvt Ltd vs CGST, Udaipur
- Clariant Chemicals India Ltd vs CCE & ST, Raigad
- ITCO Industries Ltd vs CGST & CE, Salem
- Flexi Caps & Polymers Pvt Ltd vs CGST & CE, Indore
- OSI Systems Pvt Ltd vs CCT, Rangareddy

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, following the precedents set by various co-ordinate Benches, held that the Appellant is eligible for a cash refund of the CVD+SAD paid post-GST implementation, under Sec.142(3) of the CGST Act. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund along with interest from the initial date of filing the refund claim.

---