2017 (1) TMI 694 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants appeal on refund claim, emphasizing substantive rights over procedural lapses.

The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay in filing appeals despite procedural errors, emphasizing that substantive rights cannot be denied for ... Refund - Unjust enrichment - whether the refund claim filed by the appellant as a consequential relief arising out of encashment of bank guarantee and finalisation of provisional assessment done prior to 13/07/2006 is hit by unjust enrichment? - Held that: - It is pertinent to mention that the period involved is prior to 13/07/2006. Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 was introduced w.e.f. 13/07/2006. The Hon’ble Court of Delhi in the judgments CC Vs. Indian Oil Corporation [2012 (1) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT] categorically held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to the refunds in regard to assessments finalised prior to 13/07/2006 - the order passed by the authorities below crediting the sanctioned refund to the consumer welfare fund is unjustified - appellant is eligible for refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved:1. Maintainability of appeals before the Tribunal due to procedural infraction.2. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is hit by unjust enrichment.Analysis:Issue 1: Maintainability of appeals before the Tribunal due to procedural infractionThe Department raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals as the appellant had filed only two appeals against four Orders-in-Original, contrary to the procedure prescribed in Rule 6 for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The appellant later filed two new appeals along with an application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the issue was already contained in the earlier appeals filed, seeking condonation of delay. The Department strongly opposed the maintainability of the appeals due to the procedural error. However, the Tribunal held that the delay could be condoned, following the principle that substantive rights cannot be denied for procedural lapses. Consequently, the delay condonation applications were allowed, and the appeals were heard and disposed of accordingly.Issue 2: Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is hit by unjust enrichmentThe appellant filed a refund claim as a consequential relief arising from the encashment of bank guarantees and finalization of provisional assessment done before 13/07/2006. The appellant imported capital goods under specific customs notifications, and after provisional assessment, the Bank Guarantees were encashed. Subsequently, final assessment led to the demand for differential duties, which the appellant contested up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing concessional duty and consequential reliefs. However, the Refund Sanctioning Authority credited the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund, citing unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that unjust enrichment does not apply to imported capital goods used captively and relied on relevant case laws. The Department argued that the refund was hit by unjust enrichment as the Bank Guarantee was not reflected in the appellant's accounts as receivables. The Tribunal, considering judgments from various High Courts and Tribunals, held that unjust enrichment does not apply to refunds related to assessments finalized before 13/07/2006. Therefore, the order crediting the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund was set aside, and the appellant was deemed eligible for the refund, allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the procedural and substantive issues involved, providing a detailed overview of the Tribunal's decision and the legal principles applied in reaching the final outcome.