Finality of assessment and unjust enrichment in customs refund claims: refund denied for finalised entries, allowed on balance claim.

Refund of customs duty could not be claimed for two Bills of Entry where the assessments had attained finality and had not been set aside in the proper appellate forum, even though similar consignments were later found eligible for exemption. For the remaining claim, the presumption of unjust enrichment was rebutted by a Chartered Accountant's certificate, cost records and balance-sheet entries showing the amount as customs deposit under loans and advances. In the absence of contrary evidence from Revenue, the documentary material was accepted and the refund on the balance claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of customs duty paid in respect of two Bills of Entry, whose assessments had attained finality and were not part of the earlier tribunal order, was admissible; and (ii) whether the bar of unjust enrichment applied so as to defeat the refund claim on the remaining goods.

Issue (i): Whether refund of customs duty paid in respect of two Bills of Entry, whose assessments had attained finality and were not part of the earlier tribunal order, was admissible.

Analysis: Refund could not be claimed merely because similar consignments were later held eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 72/93-Cus. The duty paid under the two Bills of Entry had not been challenged in the proper appellate forum, and the assessments had therefore become final. A refund claim cannot be entertained against an assessment that has attained finality unless that assessment is first set aside according to law.

Conclusion: Refund in respect of the two Bills of Entry was not admissible, and the rejection of that part of the claim was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the bar of unjust enrichment applied so as to defeat the refund claim on the remaining goods.

Analysis: The presumption that duty incidence on raw materials is passed on is rebuttable. The assessee produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate, cost structure, and balance-sheet entries showing the disputed amount as customs deposit under loans and advances. No contrary material was brought by Revenue to discredit the certificate or to establish that the duty burden had been passed on. Mere objection to the level of overheads was insufficient to rebut the documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The assessee successfully rebutted unjust enrichment and was entitled to the sanctioned refund on the remaining claim.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with refund denied for the two finalised Bills of Entry but allowed on the balance claim after rejecting the unjust enrichment objection.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot succeed against an assessment that has attained finality unless that assessment is first set aside, and the presumption of passing on duty incidence under unjust enrichment can be rebutted by credible accounting evidence and a Chartered Accountant's certificate when not disproved by the Revenue.

---