2014 (3) TMI 997 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - appellant has filed multiple refund claims against one bill of entry - Held that - there is no such restriction either in the Notification or under the Act. The said restriction stands imposed by the Board vide its circular issued in exercise of executive powers. It is well settled law that the procedural restrictions imposed by way of executive instructions should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory and the same would always remain subservient to and are in aid to justice. It is well settled that interpretation which eludes or frustrates recipient of justice is not to be followed. It seems that the said procedural relevance stand issued by the Board for the purpose of convenience and easy administration of justice for deciding the refund claims - appellant can altogether be clubbed in the last refund claim filed in respect of the same bill of entry and can be decided together. As such, I find no justification in the impugned order of authorities below - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - Denial of refund due to multiple claims against one bill of entry.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT DELHI pertained to three appeals consolidated into a common order, all stemming from the same disputed decision made by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The central issue revolved around the denial of a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) as per Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The denial was based on the contention that the appellant had submitted multiple refund claims against a single bill of entry, contravening the guidelines stated in para 4.2 of Circular No. 6/2008-Cus issued by the Board. This circular restricted the filing of only one claim per bill of entry within a year.

Upon scrutiny, it was observed that the restriction cited by the lower authorities was not explicitly outlined in the Notification or the Act but was imposed through an executive circular by the Board. The judgment highlighted that procedural restrictions imposed through executive instructions should not be considered mandatory and should serve the purpose of facilitating justice. It emphasized that interpretations hindering justice should be avoided, indicating that the circular's purpose was to streamline the process rather than impede legitimate claims.

The judgment reasoned that consolidating the multiple claims into a single claim for the same bill of entry could facilitate a comprehensive assessment. Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund on technical grounds was deemed unjustified. The matter was remitted to the original adjudicating authority for a merit-based evaluation of the refund claims, without the procedural objections raised earlier.

In conclusion, all three appeals were allowed through remand, signifying a favorable outcome for the appellant in terms of reevaluation of the refund claims without the restrictive technicalities previously invoked by the authorities.