2014 (8) TMI 969 - AT - Customs

Interest on delayed refund claim - Held that - Reasons assigned in the impugned order for denying refund are misconceived and wrong. The learned appellate authority has misconceived the provisions under Section 27A of the Customs Act. The issue of refund in the facts and circumstances is covered on all four corners by Ruling of the Hon ble Apex Court in I.T.C. Ltd. (2004 (12) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to interest for the period of delay being 20-10-2006 to 21-1-2008, I further direct the adjudicating authority to grant interest within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of cash security deposit and interest payment for delay in granting refund.
2. Applicability of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 for interest payment.
3. Interpretation of C.B.E. & C. Circulars and relevant case laws.
4. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter.

Issue 1: Refund of cash security deposit and interest payment for delay in granting refund:
The case involved the appellant, M/s. Mehta Flex Pvt. Ltd., seeking a refund of a cash security deposit amounting to Rs. 20,52,600. The appellant applied for finalization of provisional assessment and release of the bond and cash security deposit, which was granted after a delay. The appellant claimed interest for the delay in refund payment from October 2006 to January 2008 under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the delay but held that interest was allowable for the admitted period of delay. The appellant argued that the delay exceeded three months and relied on relevant circulars and case laws supporting interest payment for delayed refunds.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 for interest payment:
The appellant contended that interest should be paid for the delay in refund payment, citing Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) recognized the delay but emphasized that interest was allowable based on the appellant's submission clarifying the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment. The Tribunal found the reasons for denying the refund in the impugned order to be misconceived and set aside the order. The Tribunal ruled that the appellant was entitled to interest for the period of delay from October 2006 to January 2008, directing the adjudicating authority to grant interest within a specified timeframe.

Issue 3: Interpretation of C.B.E. & C. Circulars and relevant case laws:
The case involved a detailed analysis of the C.B.E. & C. Circulars and case laws cited by the appellant to support their claim for interest payment on delayed refunds. The appellant relied on Circular Nos. 275/37/2K-CX 8A and 802/35/2004-CX, along with a Supreme Court ruling, to argue for interest payment at a specified rate for delayed refunds exceeding three months. The Tribunal considered these references and concluded that the appellant's claim for interest was valid, emphasizing the applicability of relevant legal provisions and precedents in determining the entitlement to interest on delayed refunds.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter:
The Tribunal noted the Revenue's challenge regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter. In response to the appeal challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). This decision highlighted the procedural aspect of jurisdiction and the Tribunal's authority to review and remand cases for further consideration.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai addressed various issues related to the refund of a cash security deposit, interest payment for delay, the application of relevant legal provisions, and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in remanding the matter. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim for interest on the delayed refund, emphasizing the misconceptions in the impugned order and directing the adjudicating authority to grant interest within a specified timeframe.