9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeals against a common order passed by the Collector of Customs in favor of the respondents regarding refund of customs duty. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding recovery of customs duty erroneously refunded. Contradictory decisions by different benches of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. Examination of legal position under the Customs Act in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Asian Paints case. Analysis: The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI involved challenges against a common order by the Collector of Customs favoring the respondents in sanctioning a refund of customs duty for imported goods found short upon clearance at Customs. The Collector (Appeals) had rejected the appeals by the department based on the legal question of whether the department could recover erroneously refunded customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act. This issue stemmed from conflicting decisions by different benches of the Tribunal, specifically the cases of Collector v. Universal Radiators Ltd. and Shree Digvijay Cement Company Ltd., which were later addressed by a Larger Bench in Asian Paints (India) Ltd. v. Collector, affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Larger Bench decision clarified that the department could recover duty from an assessee based on the results of an appeal filed under Section 35E, even if the time limit under Section 11A had expired. The Supreme Court upheld this position, emphasizing the distinct purposes and time limits of Sections 35E and 11A. The Tribunal, in line with the Supreme Court judgment, held that the legal position established by the apex court in the Asian Paints case applied to the Customs Act as well, allowing the department to recover erroneously refunded customs duty under Section 28 post a review under Section 129D. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, noting that it contradicted the legal position affirmed by the Supreme Court. The cases were remanded for the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the merits of the refund claims, which raised factual questions requiring further scrutiny. The appeals were allowed by way of remand for a fresh speaking order on the refund claims in question, emphasizing adherence to legal principles and natural justice in the review process.
|
