TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms Tariff Act, 1975, for Rs. 44,99,516/-and Rs. 2,89,66,263/-. The ground for filing the said refund claims was that the imported mobile phones in question and cleared them on payment of CVD at the tariff rate of 6%, inadvertently. The claim of the Respondent is that they were eligible for concessional rate of CVD at the rate of 1% under Sl. No.263A of Notification No. 12/2012-CE, dated 17.03.2012, as amended by Notification No. 04/2014-CE, dated 17.02.2014, in the import of mobile phones, subject to the condition that no credit under Rule 3 or Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 have been taken in respect of the inputs or capital goods used in the manufacture of these goods. As they have paid duty @6% instead of 1% concessional duty eligible to them, they have applied for refund of the excess duty paid. 2.1. On adjudication, both the claims were rejected by the ld. original adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original 78/2016 ACRS and 76/2016 ACRS, both dated 28.03.2016. 2.2. The Respondent approached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta by way of filing Writ Petition No. 477/2016 against both the adjudication orders. The Hon'ble High Court, vide its Order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered Accountant stating that the company has not passed on the burden of Customs duty to the buyers and the CVD being claimed as refund has been shown in the books of accounts as receivable /recoverable under the sub-heading "CVD REFUNDABLE" under the head "Current Assets". 5.1. Additionally, the Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the appellant-Revenue has relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Refund Section, Kolkata [Final Order Nos. 75631-75632 of 2025 dated 24.02.2025 in Customs Appeal Nos. 75241 and 75242 of 2021 - CESTAT, Kolkata] to support his contentions. 6. In response to the appeal filed by the Revenue, the respondent has made the following submissions:- (i) The impugned order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is a fair, legal and detailed speaking order, which has been passed by taking into consideration all the grounds of appeal taken before him by the Department. (ii) There is no dispute that the benefit of exemption as provided under Serial No. 263A of Notification No. 12/2012-CE, dated 17.03.2012, as amended by Notification No. 4/2014....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls of entry and cleared the goods imported on payment of duty at the tariff rate of 6%. These facts are not in dispute. 8.1. From the above facts, it is clear that the respondent has paid duty in excess. Thus, the respondent has filed the refund claims in question in respect of the excess duty paid by them. The claim of the Revenue is that the respondent has paid the duty on self-assessment and have not challenged the self-assessment made by them. We do not agree with this contention of the Revenue. If this view is accepted then in the era of self-assessment, there will be no refund of excess duty paid erroneously. Further, we observe that filing of application for the refund of the excess duty paid by the respondent shows that they were not in agreement with the self-assessed bills of entry. Accordingly, we hold that contention of the Revenue that a self-assessed Bill of Entry is to be considered as a correctly assessed Bill of Entry is completely misconceived and the contention of the Revenue that the respondent is not entitled to the refund on this ground, is legally not sustainable. 8.2. It is also the Revenue's stand that the decision in the case of M/s. Micromax Informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve granted. No stay Tag with Civil Appeal No. 2960 of 2010." As such, no stay has been granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the cases and as such the judgments of Hon'ble High Courts are still in operation and therefore there is no infirmity in the refund orders as passed by the lower authority and the reliance on the same is applicable in the instant cases." 8.3. Thus, we hold that the ld. appellate authority has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Micromax Informatics Ltd. to sanction the refund to the respondent and we do not find any infirmity in relying on the said decision to grant the refund. 9. Regarding the issue of unjust enrichment, we find that the ld. adjudicating authority as well as the Ld. Appellate Principal Commissioner have relied on the Certificate of the Chartered Accountant to arrive at the conclusion that the issue of 'unjust enrichment' is not applicable in this case. From the Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, we find that the company has not passed on the burden of Customs duty to the buyers and the CVD being claimed as refund has been shown in the books of accounts as recei....