9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim due to non-mention of interest paid under protest on Green Bill of Entry. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the adjudicating authority dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants regarding the rejection of the refund claim. The appellants imported raw materials, warehoused them, and later cleared the goods upon payment of duty. The Department demanded interest from the appellants, which they paid under protest and mentioned on TR-6 Challans. The refund claim was rejected as the interest payment was not explicitly mentioned on the Green Bill of Entry, deemed time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection citing the absence of a single payment challan explicitly stating "under protest." The appellant's representative argued that the TR-6 challans clearly stated "Interest is paid under protest" and were for independent bill of entries, citing relevant tribunal decisions. The appellant's representative contended that the TR-6 challans annexed to the appeal explicitly mentioned "Interest is paid under protest" and were for independent bill of entries assessed during goods clearance from the Central Warehouse Corporation. The representative relied on tribunal decisions in similar cases to support their argument. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the appellants did not mention the protest on the bill of entry or provide a letter expressing grievance over the interest calculation. The DR maintained that the rejection of the refund claim was appropriate as the protest on TR-6 Challans was insufficient. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was found that the TR-6 challans clearly indicated that the interest was paid under protest. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case established that the protest registered in the TR-6 challan during interest payment sufficed as a protest under the Customs Act, 1962. The absence of a formal protest letter did not invalidate the protest made through the TR-6 challans. Another Division Bench case confirmed that endorsements like "duty paid under protest" on relevant documents could serve as evidence of payment under protest, even without a formal protest letter. The judgment emphasized that the intention to pay under protest was evident in this case, and there was no rigid requirement for a formal protest letter if the intention was implicitly clear. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and any consequential relief was granted to the appellants. The judgment highlighted that the intention to pay interest under protest was clear from the TR-6 challans, emphasizing that the absence of a formal protest letter did not invalidate the protest made implicitly through the payment method.
|
