TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 709
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejected the refund sanction on the grounds of unjust enrichment. 2. The Adjudicating Authority had sanction refund of Rs. 12,10,234/- to M/s Sesa Goa Ltd., (now M/s Sesa Sterlite Ltd.,). In respect of excise duty paid on export goods. Subsequently, Department has issued Show Cause Notice dated 28.01.2013, proposing recovery of the erroneous refund on the ground that the appellant had realized an amount higher than the FOB value declared, thereby, attracting the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 3. No one was present for the appellant to argue the matter on several hearings in past. No one was present for the appellant even on the date of final hearing. Therefore, we heard the Learned AR and perused the records. 4. Learned AR reiterat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur. As seen from the correspondence file C,No.VIII/20/02/2011-R of the Refund Sanctioning authority, I find that the respondent have filed a refund claim on 16.08.2011 arising on account of reassessment of shipping bill no.43/08-09 dated 15.07.2011. The said shipping bill was assessed provisionally and duty of Rs. 1,38,91,038/- paid by the respondent on 14.07.2008. The shipping bill was reassessed and the duty payable was worked out to Rs. 1,26,80,805/- vide speaking order dated 25.07.2011 and 14.10.2011. Consequent upon the reassessment, the respondent filed the refund claim and the instant refund was sanctioned by the refund sanctioning authority (i.e. AC, Customs, Krishnapatnam Port basing on the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent over and above the amount received, in view of the facts discussed above, I hold that the refund sanctioning authority had not examined the aspect of unjust enrichment clause on the excess differential amount realized by them vis-avis financial records. Further, no positive material was advanced by the respondent to prove conclusively that the excess amount realized by them do not include the amount of duty sought for refund. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that contention of the revenue is correct and impugned order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following order." 6. The appellant declared FOB value of USD 2168780.25 in the shipping bill, however, as per Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the duty has been passed on, the claimant cannot say that he has suffered any real loss or prejudice. The real loss or prejudice is suffered in such a case by the person who has ultimately borne the burden and it is only that person who can legitimately claim its refund. But where such person does not come forward or where it is not possible to refund the amount to him for one or the other reason, it is just and appropriate that that amount is retained by the State, i.e., by the people. There is no immorality or impropriety involved in such a proposition. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine. No person can seek to collect the duty from both ends. In other words, he cannot collect the duty from his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not otherwise entitled. Section 11B of the Act or similar provision merely gives legislative recognition to this doctrine. That, however, does not mean that in absence of statutory provision, a person can claim or retain undue benefit. Before claiming a relief of refund, it is necessary for the petitioner/appellant to show that he has paid the amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on the burden on consumers and if such relief is not granted, he would suffer loss." 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Addison and Company Ltd., supra, held that the assessee is not entitled to refund as it would result in unjust enrichment. Relevant para of the judgment of ready reference: "21. That a consumer can make an ap....