BIHAR ALLOY STEELS LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case are as under : 1.1 The appellant imported copper moulds and other metal moulds to be used by them as capital goods in their factory for manufacture of iron and steel products, in or around April 1992. The Customs duty, Auxiliary duty and Countervailing duty at the rate of 30%, 45% & 15% respectively were paid by them at the time of clearance of the said product whereas the applicable rates

(2.) on the relevant time were 25%, 30% & 15%. Thus the appellant paid an excess amount of Rs. 1,66,968.45. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim for the said amount on 25 -4 -1992. These facts are undisputed by the Customs authorities. The said refund claim was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner and cheque dated 22 -5 -1995 was issued by the department in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, vide show cause notice dated 13 -9 -1995, the appellant herein was called upon to show cause as to why the refund claim of Rs. 1,66,968/ - which has been erroneously refunded to them should not be recovered under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 as the same was hit by the bar of unjust enrichment in terms of Section 27 of the Act. After considering the appellant's written submissions and the contention made by them, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 12 -6 -1996 demanded the said amount on the ground of unjust enrichment. On Appeal against the above order, the appellant did not succeed.

(3.) COUNTERING the argument of the appellant. ld. SDR, Shri T. Premkumar submitted that the goods were imported in the year 1992 and the refund claim was sanctioned in the year 1995. It is not possible that the appellant has not included the duty paid on the capital goods towards the cost of their final product and has not realised the same from their ultimate customers. Referring to Tribunal's decision in the case of C.C.E., Madras v. Shardlow India Ltd. reported in 1997 (21) RLT 93 (Tribunal), he submitted that the value of the master -die which is a capital goods has been held to be included in the assessable value of the final product on pro rata basis taking into consideration the normal life -span of the same. Drawing inference from the said decision, he submitted that the cost of capital goods is invariably added towards the cost of the final product by the manufacturer. He specifically drew attention of the Bench to paras namely, 4.3 and 4.4 of the impugned order in support of the submissions that the prices of the goods for market, the entire cost of production including duties and taxes paid by the manufacturer on the inputs and plant and machinery get added into final price of the product. Accordingly, he prayed for rejection of the Appeal.