2017 (8) TMI 1151 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants, excluding Technical Knowhow fee, accepting refund claim on extra duty deposits.

M/s. Savio India Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Coimbatore

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case, ruling in favor of the appellants on all issues. The Technical Knowhow fee was excluded from the ... Refund claim - payment of extra duty deposit on ex-bond clearances effected during the period 31.01.2001 to 20.07.2012 - time limitation - Held that: - the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CC (Exports), Chennai Vs. Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 861 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has observed that limitation aspect is not applicable in refund of extra duty deposit made pending finalization of provisional assessment and the same are required to be automatically refunded without filing application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - the factual position in the case before the Hon’ble Madras High Court is more or less identical to the facts of the present case, thus making the ratio of law declared by the Hon’ble High Court as applicable to the facts of the present case. Refund rejected also on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that: - No documents or records stand verified by the lower authorities so as to come to the conclusion of unjust enrichment and only a general observation to the extent that no prudent businessman would continue to pay higher duty without passing the same to the buyer of the goods, stand made by the appellate authority - As such, while allowing the appeal on the point of limitation, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for examination of the principles of unjust enrichment. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Valuation of Technical Knowhow fee in transaction value under Customs Valuation Rules.2. Refund claim for extra duty deposit on ex-bond clearances.3. Application of Section 27 of the Customs Act on refund of extra duty deposits.4. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment.Issue 1: The judgment revolves around the valuation of Technical Knowhow fee in the transaction value under Customs Valuation Rules. Initially, the Special Valuation Branch ordered to add the fee paid by the appellants to their principals in the transaction value. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, but the matter was remanded back by CESTAT, Chennai. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the Technical know-how fee should not be added to the transaction value, which was accepted by the Department.Issue 2: The appellants filed a refund claim for extra duty deposit on ex-bond clearances. The competent authority rejected the claim as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the appellants contended that the deposits were not duty refunds but extra deposits as directed by customs authorities. The Tribunal, citing a decision of the Madras High Court, allowed the refund of the extra deposit made during the pendency of the matter before various authorities.Issue 3: The application of Section 27 of the Customs Act on the refund of extra duty deposits was a crucial point of contention. The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court decision, held that the limitation aspect does not apply to refund extra duty deposits made pending finalization of provisional assessment. The Tribunal found the factual position similar to the case before the High Court, leading to the allowance of the refund claim.Issue 4: The refund claim was also rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellants argued that they had not passed on the extra duty deposit to their customers, as evidenced by their Balance Sheet and Chartered Accountant's Certificate. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting that no verification was done by the lower authorities to establish unjust enrichment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection on unjust enrichment and remanded the matter for further examination while granting the appellants an opportunity to present their case.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the entitlement of the appellants to the refund of the extra deposit and the need for a thorough examination of the unjust enrichment aspect by the original adjudicating authority.