Refund of differential CVD allowed despite self-assessed Bills of Entry, unjust enrichment overcome with CA certificate

CESTAT Bangalore allowed appellant's appeal for refund of differential CVD paid on imported goods. The tribunal held that refund claims filed without challenging self-assessed Bills of Entry were valid, as department failed to challenge Commissioner(Appeals) findings which attained finality. Regarding unjust enrichment, chartered accountant certificate proving duty burden not passed to customers was accepted based on consistent tribunal precedents. On limitation, refund claim filed within one year from duty payment date (14.10.2014 to 14.10.2015) was held timely, excluding payment date per Limitation Act provisions. Appellant granted refund of differential duty under Notification 12/2012-CE.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals are: (i) whether the appellant could claim refund of additional customs duty (CVD) without challenging the self-assessed Bills of Entry; (ii) whether the appellant satisfied the criteria of unjust enrichment, specifically whether the burden of the duty claimed as refund was passed on to the customers; and (iii) whether the refund claim relating to four Bills of Entry involving a total amount of Rs.12,00,588/- was barred by limitation under the Customs Act, 1962.

Regarding the first issue, the relevant legal framework involves the Customs Act, 1962, particularly provisions relating to assessment and refund claims, and judicial precedents on the finality of orders when not challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority initially rejected the refund claims because the appellant had not challenged the self-assessed Bills of Entry. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overruled this, holding that the appellant was entitled to file refund claims against self-assessed Bills of Entry without resorting to appeals or amendments under Section 149 of the Customs Act. This finding was not challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal or any higher forum, thus attaining finality. The Tribunal relied on authoritative Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions, including Birla Corporation Ltd., Steel Authority of India, MTR Foods Ltd., and Akshar Telecom Pvt. Ltd., which affirm that an unchallenged finding of the adjudicating authority becomes final and cannot be reopened at a higher forum. The Tribunal further emphasized that the Revenue's attempt to raise this issue at the appellate stage was impermissible, as the principle of finality precludes re-agitation of settled matters, even if framed as legal issues. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the refund claims were maintainable despite the absence of challenge to the Bills of Entry.

On the second issue of unjust enrichment, the legal framework includes Sections 28C and 28D of the Customs Act, which require the claimant to establish that the duty burden has not been passed on to others, to prevent unjust enrichment. The appellant produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate affirming that the incidence of the duty was not passed on to customers. The Tribunal noted that identical certificates had been accepted by various Benches of the Tribunal (Delhi, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad) in similar cases involving the same appellant and goods, and that the Deputy Commissioner, Ahmedabad, after remand, also accepted the certificate and held that the duty burden was not passed on. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue's contention that corroborative evidence beyond the Chartered Accountant's certificate was necessary was untenable, given the consistent acceptance of such certificates by multiple Benches and authorities. This uniform approach reinforced the credibility of the certificate and the appellant's claim. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had satisfied the unjust enrichment condition, entitling them to the refund.

The third issue concerned limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which prescribes a one-year period for filing refund claims from the date of payment of duty. The appellant's refund claims were filed exactly one year after payment. The Tribunal examined the computation of limitation period in light of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates exclusion of the day from which the limitation period is reckoned. Additionally, Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, clarifies the inclusion and exclusion of days in computing time periods. Applying these provisions, the Tribunal held that the date of payment of duty must be excluded in calculating the one-year limitation period. Therefore, the refund claims filed on the one-year anniversary were within time and not barred by limitation. The Tribunal supported this reasoning with precedents including Punjab Breweries Ltd. and a recent Supreme Court civil appeal, which endorse the exclusion of the initial day in limitation calculations.

In applying the law to the facts, the Tribunal gave due regard to the binding effect of unchallenged orders, the consistent acceptance of the Chartered Accountant's certificate across multiple forums, and the statutory provisions governing limitation. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments that the refund claims were inadmissible due to failure to challenge Bills of Entry, failure to prove non-passing of duty burden, and delay in filing refund claims. The Tribunal's reasoning emphasized the principle that once an issue attains finality, it cannot be reopened, and that the appellant's evidence on unjust enrichment was sufficient. The limitation period was correctly computed excluding the day of payment, making the refund claims timely.

The Tribunal's treatment of competing arguments was thorough. It acknowledged the Revenue's reliance on the adjudicating authority's findings but underscored that those findings were overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals) and not challenged further, thus binding on the Revenue. On unjust enrichment, the Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's demand for additional corroboration from the consistent acceptance of the Chartered Accountant's certificate by various Benches and authorities, finding no basis to reject it. On limitation, the Tribunal applied established principles of exclusion of the initial day, overruling the Revenue's contention that the claims were time-barred.

The Tribunal's conclusions were that (i) refund claims filed without challenging self-assessed Bills of Entry are maintainable where the Revenue has not challenged such claims at the appropriate stage; (ii) the appellant satisfied the unjust enrichment condition by producing a credible Chartered Accountant's certificate accepted by multiple forums; and (iii) the refund claims were filed within the statutory limitation period when computed correctly by excluding the date of payment.

The significant holdings include the Tribunal's clear articulation of the principle of finality: "if the department does not challenge a finding of the adjudicating authority by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), than that finding of the adjudicating authority attains finality and the department cannot be permitted to subsequently raise this issue in a higher forum." This principle was reinforced by reference to Supreme Court and High Court decisions, underscoring that "an order which has attained finality between the parties can only be assailed in a manner known to law and mere over-ruling of the principles followed in the said order by a subsequent judgment cannot dilute the binding effect of the decision."

On unjust enrichment, the Tribunal held: "It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention raised by the learned authorized representatives appearing for the department that the certificate of the chartered accountant produced by the appellant to substantiate the incidence of duty had not passed on to the buyers should not be accepted because the appellant did not produce any other corroborative evidence as required under sections 28C and 28D of the Customs Act." The Tribunal accepted the certificate as sufficient evidence to establish non-passing of the duty burden.

Regarding limitation, the Tribunal's determination was grounded in statutory interpretation: "In view of the Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the day from which such period is to be reckoned ought to be excluded... Thus, the refund claims are not barred by limitation." This clarified the correct computation of limitation for refund claims under the Customs Act.

In final determination, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims and allowed the appeals with consequential relief as per law, thereby granting the appellant the refund of the differential duty paid under Notification No.12/2012-CE, consistent with the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in SRF Limited.

---