The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), ordered re-adjudication to verify unjust enrichment which resulted in a major setback to Reliance Industries Limited.
The appellant in the present matter is CC Kandla and the respondent is Reliance Industries Limited.
The revenue filed the present appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Revenue has allowed the refund on merit as well as on unjust enrichment. The Revenue has made the ground of appeal only on the issue of unjust enrichment.
The factual background of the case is that the Respondent imported cranes under the contract of the Foreign Party in the USA. Out of the three lots of consignments, two consignments arrived at Mundra Port and one consignment arrived at Kandla Port. The present appeal relates to the import made at Kandla under the bill of entry no. 2066982 dated 15.02.2019.
In respect of these consignments, the respondent claimed the benefit of partial exemption of Notification No. 72/2017-Cus dated 16.08.2017. The Notification provided for an effective rate of duty of 25% if the cranes are re-exported within 6 to 9 months of import and an effective rate of duty of 30% if the imported cranes are re-exported within 09-12 months of the date of import.
The Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly followed the finding of the order of Mundra Customs and that there is a common CA Certificate provided in respect of excess duty paid at Mundra Customs as well as Kandla Customs whereas the CA Certificate has been considered and viewed that there is no unjust enrichment, the same was rightly followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order.
The Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “The issue of unjust enrichment depends on the fact of each case, however, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) except following the order of Mundra (Customs), neither examined the fact of unjust enrichment of the present case nor given any independent finding. Therefore, in our considered view, the matter related to the issue of unjust enrichment needs to be reconsidered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
