CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Customs Appeal No. 20086 of 2022 [Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 424-425/2021 dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bengaluru]

M/s. Superton Electronics Private Limited

12/1, 1^st Floor, CVR Building Appellant(s)

Hosur Road Wilson Garden Bangalore – 560 027 -

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs Airport and Air Cargo Commissionerate Respondent(s)

Menzies Bobba Cargo Terminal Devanahalli Bangalore – 560 300 With Customs Appeal No. 20087 of 2022 [Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 424-425/2021 dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bengaluru]

M/s. Superton Electronics Private Limited

12/1, 1^st Floor, CVR Building Appellant(s)

Hosur Road Wilson Garden Bangalore – 560 027 -

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs Airport and Air Cargo Commissionerate Respondent(s)

Menzies Bobba Cargo Terminal Devanahalli Bangalore – 560 300 -

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Vipin Upadhyay, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Maneesh Akhoury, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MR. PULLELA NAGESWARA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Final Order Nos. 21268 - 21269 / 2025 DATE OF HEARING: 22.07.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 22.07.2025 PER : D.M. MISRA These two appeals are filed against respective Orders-in-

Appeal passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore, since involve common issues, these are taken up together for hearing and disposal.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are, inter alia, engaged in the business of import of mobile phones falling under CTH 85171290 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. During the relevant period, the appellant had paid additional duty of customs (CVD), however, without availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as they had not satisfied the condition No.16 prescribed under the said notification. Later, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – 2015 (318) E.L.T. 607 (SC), decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that they would be eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. Consequently, the appellant had filed two refund claims for the period 1^st April 2015 to 17^th July 2015 and 1^st February, 2015 to 25^th March 2015. On adjudication, the refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved, they preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who though agreed that the refund claims are in order but rejected the same on the ground of unjust enrichment. Hence, the present appeals.

3. At the outset, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Limited (supra), the appellant had filed refund claims seeking refund of the differential amount of CVD paid by the appellant on imported goods during the relevant period but the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims primarily on two grounds viz. (i) the appellant filed the refund claims without challenging the self-assessed Bills of Entry and (ii) they have failed to prove that the burden of CVD paid by them has not been passed on to the customers.

3.1. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellant had failed to establish that the CVD claimed as refund has not been passed on to the customers; hence the issue of unjust enrichment is not satisfied by the appellant.

3.2. On the issue of unjust enrichment, the learned Advocate has submitted that referring to more or less similar Chartered Account’s certificate, the Tribunal at Delhi, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad in their own case held that the appellant had not collected the duty from their customers; accordingly refund claims are not hit by the principles of unjust enrichment. In support, he has referred to the judgment in the following cases:-

i. Nokia In