Tribunal rules no interest on pre-2006 Customs Act assessments, rejects unjust enrichment doctrine

M/s. Cisco Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Customs (Vice-Versa)

M/s. Cisco Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Customs (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues:
1. Liability of interest on finalization of Bills of Entry for provisional assessments.
2. Applicability of unjust enrichment in cases of provisional assessments before 2006.
3. Appropriation of excess duty paid towards interest.
4. Refund of excess duty paid on import of spare parts.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability of interest on finalization of Bills of Entry for provisional assessments
The appellants contended that interest is not payable on finalization of Bills of Entry for provisional assessments conducted before the amendment of Section 18(3) of the Customs Act in 2006. They cited various case laws to support their argument. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, referred to judgments by the Madras High Court and Gujarat High Court, which held that interest cannot be charged on differential duty assessed upon final assessment for provisional assessments undertaken before the amendment. The Tribunal agreed with this view and set aside the orders imposing interest.

Issue 2: Applicability of unjust enrichment in cases of provisional assessments before 2006
The Tribunal examined the issue of unjust enrichment in cases of provisional assessments before 2006. Referring to a judgment by the Karnataka High Court, it concluded that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to refund claims under Section 18 of the Act for provisional assessments conducted before the amendment. The Tribunal found no basis for the conclusions in the original orders and set them aside based on the judgments of the High Courts of Madras and Gujarat.

Issue 3: Appropriation of excess duty paid towards interest
The appellants argued against the appropriation of excess duty paid towards interest under Section 18(3) despite a stay granted by the CESTAT. The Tribunal found this appropriation incorrect and set it aside, highlighting that the learned Commissioner was bound by the Tribunal's decision in the absence of a stay.

Issue 4: Refund of excess duty paid on import of spare parts
The Tribunal analyzed the import of spare parts by the appellants and found that they did not import at a higher price than unrelated entities, making the observations in the SVB order irrelevant for imports before 2003. Based on this analysis and the judgments of the High Courts, the Tribunal concluded that no interest could be charged on finalization of provisional assessments initiated before 2006. Consequently, it set aside the impugned orders related to various appeals and dismissed the revenue appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals related to the issues discussed and dismissed the revenue appeal, providing consequential relief as per law.