2023 (3) TMI 1132 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds refund decision, rejects Revenue's arguments on limitation and unjust enrichment.

Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import) Commissionerate, New Delhi Versus M/s Telecare Network (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import) Commissionerate, New Delhi Versus M/s Telecare Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved: 1. Limitation2. Unjust enrichmentSummary:Limitation:Revenue filed an appeal challenging the order dated 21.03.2022 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision to sanction a refund to the respondent. The respondent, a Private Limited Company importing and selling mobile phones in India, had paid additional duty of customs under protest. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in SRF Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, the respondent filed a refund claim on 24.06.2016 for the excess additional duty paid between 26.03.2015 to 22.06.2015. The Assistant Commissioner initially rejected this claim, but the Delhi High Court later ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the refund application to be decided on its merits. The Assistant Commissioner subsequently sanctioned the refund, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue argued that the refund was time-barred under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, as it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period. However, the High Court had already addressed and dismissed this limitation argument, compelling the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) to follow the High Court's order.Unjust Enrichment:Revenue also contended that the refund claim was subject to unjust enrichment, arguing that the importer had indicated the amount paid as duty under Section 27. The respondent countered this by submitting a self-declaration and a Chartered Accountant's certificate from M/s Naveen Associates, confirming that the excess amount was not passed on to consumers. The balance sheet for FY 2015-16 listed the excess duty as a receivable under 'customs duty refund receivable.' The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the Chartered Accountant's certificate was valid, and the duty was not passed on to buyers. Revenue challenged the credibility of the Chartered Accountant's certificate, asserting that M/s Naveen Associates were not the statutory auditors. However, the respondent maintained that they were the statutory auditors during the relevant period. The Tribunal found no evidence from Revenue to disprove the Chartered Accountant's certificate or to establish that the duty was passed on to buyers. The Tribunal concluded that the refund was not hit by unjust enrichment.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) correctly followed the Delhi High Court's order. The Tribunal found no merit in Revenue's arguments regarding limitation and unjust enrichment, thereby upholding the refund to the respondent.