2023 (6) TMI 799 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds refund claim sanctioning under customs notifications, dismissing department's appeal.

Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s. Redington (India) Limited

The Tribunal upheld the sanctioning of the refund claim under relevant customs notifications and dismissed the department's appeal. The issue of unjust ... Refund of SAD - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment - it is alleged that appellant has not established that the duty element (CVD) [paid at the time of import of goods] has not been passed on to the buyer of goods - HELD THAT:- As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for respondent that in para 12 of the OIO, the issue has been elaborately discussed by the original authority. It is also noted in the said para that the Chartered Accountant certificate produced by the respondent is in accordance with Board circular. It is also recorded that the respondent furnished copies of the balance sheet and all relevant documents. The department alleges that Chartered Accountant certificate does not mention that the documents have been verified. It needs to be stated that when the original authority has noted that the Chartered Accountant certificate is in accordance with Board circular, there are no merit in the argument put forward by the department. The appeal filed by department is dismissed. Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are the sanctioning of a refund claim under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus, and the consideration of unjust enrichment in passing on the duty element (CVD) to the buyer of goods.Sanctioning of Refund Claim:The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim filed by the respondent under the relevant notifications. The department appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order sanctioning the refund. The department then approached the Tribunal challenging this decision.Unjust Enrichment Issue:The appellant argued that the duty element (CVD) paid at the time of import of goods had not been passed on to the buyer, thus justifying the rejection of the refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant did not sufficiently verify the non-passing of the duty element to the buyer. The appellant's appeal was based on the assertion that the refund claim should have been rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment.Response and Documents Submitted:The respondent submitted various documents along with the refund claim, including copies of Bills of Entry, TR 6 challans, sale invoices of imported goods, VAT/CST returns, self-declaration, Statutory Auditor's Certificate, and Correlation Certificate attested by a Chartered Accountant. The respondent's submission included a balance sheet showing the claimed amount as 'Receivable from Customs department' and a self-declaration stating that the duty incidence had not been passed on to any other person.Decision and Rationale:The Tribunal considered both parties' arguments and documents submitted. It noted that the Chartered Accountant certificate produced by the respondent was in accordance with the Board circular and that the balance sheet and relevant documents were furnished. The Tribunal found no merit in the department's argument that the Chartered Accountant certificate did not explicitly mention document verification. As the original authority had already deemed the certificate compliant with the circular, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the department's appeal based on the lack of merit in their argument.Conclusion:The Tribunal, in its operative part of the order pronounced on 16.06.2023, sustained the impugned order, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the department.