2025 (9) TMI 142 - AT - Customs

Appeal allowed: refundable extra duty deposit must be returned despite time-bar or unjust enrichment objections, funds restored

Sandvik Mining and Rock Technology India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CUSTOMS -Customs Ahmedabad

CESTAT allowed the appeal and directed refund of the extra duty deposit paid during an SVB investigation, holding that the payment should be returned to ... Refund of EDD deposited - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- It is foud that since what was sought was in the nature of refund of Extra duty deposit made during course of SVB investigation. The same deserves to be given back to the party without any consequences of unjust enrichment or time limitation in this particular instance. In view of the foregoing, the appeal of the party is allowed for granting the refund rejected on the ground of time bar and also of the one sanctioned but credited to consumer welfare fund on account of unjust enrichment. Appeal is allowed. Appellant deposited Rs. 1,02,45,639 as Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) pending SVB valuation. Out of the refund claim, Rs. 42,07,595 was rejected as time-barred, Rs. 57,56,285 was sanctioned but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of 'unjust enrichment', and Rs. 2,81,757 was not substantiated (this rejection is not contested). Relying on Gujarat High Court (Commissioner of Customs v. China Steel) and Delhi High Court (Sentec India) authority, the Tribunal held that a deposit made during SVB investigation seeking provisional assessment is not akin to tax and 'deserves to be given back to the party without any consequences of unjust enrichment or time limitation in this particular instance.' Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of directing refunds of both the amount disallowed on limitation and the amount credited as alleged unjust enrichment, and reversed the lower authority on those points.