Revenue's appeal dismissed as manufacturer's refund claim under Notification 55/2011-Cus allowed without unjust enrichment bar

CESTAT Kolkata dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding refund claim rejection. Respondent initially paid full customs duty without Certificate of Country of Origin, later obtained certificate and filed refund claim within 12 months under Notification No.55/2011-Cus. CESTAT held ITC Limited SC precedent inapplicable as respondent became entitled to preferential tariff treatment only after obtaining certificate. Since respondent was manufacturer using imported goods for exported products, unjust enrichment bar didn't apply. Refund claim allowed, adjudicating authority directed to process within 60 days.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the ITC Limited judgment.
2. Applicability of the bar of unjust enrichment.

Issue (a): Applicability of the ITC Limited Judgment

The Tribunal examined whether the decision of ITC Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata IV reported in 2019 (360) ELT 216 (S.C.) was applicable to the present case. The respondent had filed 27 Bills of Entry for importing goods from Japan and paid customs duty at the time of assessment. Later, the respondent obtained the Certificate of Country of Origin retroactively and filed refund claims under Notification No.55/2011-Cus (NT) dated 01.08.2011. The Tribunal noted that the Notification allows for the issuance of the Certificate of Origin retroactively and permits filing refund claims within twelve months from the date of filing the Bills of Entry. Since the respondent was not entitled to claim the refund at the time of filing the Bills of Entry but did so upon obtaining the Certificate of Origin, the Tribunal held that the ITC Limited judgment was not applicable. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim based on the ITC case was deemed unsustainable. The refund claims filed by the respondents were allowed.

Issue (b): Applicability of the Bar of Unjust Enrichment

The Tribunal also addressed whether the bar of unjust enrichment was applicable. The adjudicating authority initially found that the respondent, being a manufacturer who uses the imported goods to produce Graphite Electrodes for export, had not passed on the incidence of duty to any other person. This finding was not challenged by the Revenue and thus attained finality. The Tribunal further noted that since the respondent uses the imported goods in manufacturing and exports the final product, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. The Tribunal held that the respondent had passed the bar of unjust enrichment and was entitled to the refund as prayed. The adjudicating authority was directed to process the refund within 60 days.

Conclusion

The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the respondent was allowed with consequential relief.

---