2016 (11) TMI 262 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal upholds refund claim against 24 bond bills of entry, rejects Revenue's challenge

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Versus Baroda Rayon Corpn. Ltd.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai upheld the refund claim against 24 bond bills of entry following an Apex Court order. The Revenue's challenge ... Rejection of Refund claim - Held that: - the issue is regarding the refund of an amount arising out of favourable decision from the Apex Court in respect of very same assessee - It can be seen from the reproduced findings of the first appellate authority that he has followed the law as is settled by the higher judicial forum. On such a factual finding, in the grounds of appeal, it is seen that the revenue in not contradicting the findings in any manner. In our considered view, the assessee herein has produced the C.A. Certificate which indicates that the incident of duty in this case has been borne by the assessee. The said certificate is not contested by the revenue nor any contrary evidence is brought on record to disbelieve the certificate - in the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - appeal disposed off - decided against appellant. Issues Involved:Refund of duty amount; Interpretation of Apex Court judgment; Unjust enrichment; C.A. Certificate validity.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai pertains to a refund claim of an amount against 24 bond bills of entry following an Apex Court order. The Revenue contested the refund sanctioned by the adjudicating authority, which was upheld by the first appellate authority, leading to this appeal. The main contention raised by the Revenue was the failure to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on, citing the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case and the requirement to consider unjust enrichment. The Tribunal noted that the issue revolved around the refund arising from a favorable Apex Court decision for the same assessee. The first appellate authority's findings highlighted that the refund was based on the Apex Court's classification decision in favor of the assessee and the subsequent refund order, emphasizing that the C.A. Certificate supported the duty incidence borne by the assessee, unchallenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority's legal interpretation and factual assessment, finding no reason to interfere with the order.The Tribunal observed that the first appellate authority correctly applied the settled legal principles, and the Revenue did not contest the factual findings. The C.A. Certificate presented by the assessee indicated the duty incidence borne by them, with no contradictory evidence from the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order as legally sound and devoid of any defects, leading to the rejection of the appeal.