9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether two levies under different Acts can be collected simultaneously without specific provision. 2. Whether refund of an illegally collected levy should undergo a legal process. 3. Whether there is a limitation on refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1968. 4. Whether illegally collected amounts should be refunded without delay. 5. Whether the appellate authority should consider the matter in light of relevant provisions. 6. Whether the impugned order should be set aside for expeditious justice. Analysis: 1. The appellant argued that the appellate authority failed to consider the legality of collecting two levies simultaneously under the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940, and the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Cess Act, 1985 without any provision for such collection. The appellant contended that allowing refund at the discretion of the Department for an illegally collected levy would be unjust and tyrannical, especially when collected erroneously by the Superintendent of Customs. 2. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) contended that any refund to the assessee must follow due legal process for scrutiny. However, the appellant's counsel argued that without specific statutory provisions, withholding a levy illegally collected is not permissible. The appellant emphasized that the authorities should not indirectly deny refunds by using dilatory tactics under the pretext of scrutiny. 3. The appellant highlighted Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1968, which does not impose a limitation on refunds when a levy is paid under protest or under threat. The appellant stressed that any amount collected illegally must be returned to the payer promptly. Failure to do so would result in the Department paying interest as compensation to the assessee. 4. Emphasizing the principle that a levy illegally collected should be refunded, the appellant urged the authorities to uphold justice and not deprive the appellant of erroneously collected payments. The appellant pointed out that the levy in question was realized without authority and deposited under protest, indicating the urgency of refund. The appellant urged against an abuse of the legal process by the lower authority. 5. The Tribunal directed the matter back to the Appellate Authority for a proper determination on whether the erroneously collected levy could be retained without legal sanction. The Appellate Authority was instructed to expedite the decision within a month from the receipt of the order, considering that the levy was initially realized under protest. 6. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for further consideration by the Appellate Authority to ensure expeditious justice for the appellant. The Tribunal stressed the importance of adhering to legal provisions and promptly resolving the matter in the appellant's favor.
|
