2016 (1) TMI 1168 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim - challenge to Circular No. 6/2008-Cus. - consolidated refund claim as per C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 6/2008-Cus., dated 28-4-2008 should have been filed - Held that - administrative instruction or circulars are binding on the officers of the Department. The Revenue cannot challenge the circular but it is open for challenge by the assessee. I am of the view that if a circular is beyond the provisions of the Notification, the circular cannot be binding, as there is no estoppels against a statute. So the Departmental circular contrary to statutory provision has no legal existence. The reliance placed by the learned AR and as per the grounds of appeal and C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 28-4-2008, there cannot be any restriction on availing of refund claims by an assessee. We also find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel that there is no challenge that the refund claims as filed by them are ineligible to the respondent. The issue in this case, now, is settled by the Tribunal in the case of Devki Nandan J. Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II 2015 (2) TMI 872 - CESTAT MUMBAI Appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Circular No. 6/2008-Cus. regarding refund claims.
2. Validity of setting aside the order-in-original by the 1st Appellate Authority.
3. Applicability of Circulars in relation to statutory provisions.
4. Maintainability of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Circular No. 6/2008-Cus. concerning refund claims. The Appellant argued that the 1st Appellate Authority erred in sanctioning refund claims and setting aside the order-in-original. The Appellant contended that the Respondent should have filed a consolidated refund claim as per the Circular. The Circular's compliance was crucial, as it was argued that deviating from it would jeopardize the entire refund system. The Respondent, on the other hand, emphasized that they were eligible for the refund, and the appeal was merely based on a technicality.

2. The Tribunal examined the submissions from both parties and the records. The 1st Appellate Authority's decision to set aside the order-in-original was based on the rejection of refund claims by the Adjudicating Authority due to multiple claims filed in a month, which was deemed contrary to the Circular. The Tribunal concurred with the 1st Appellate Authority's reasoning, emphasizing that administrative instructions or circulars are binding on departmental officers. However, if a circular contradicts statutory provisions, it cannot be binding. In this case, since the notification did not impose the limitation mentioned in the Circular, the Revenue could not enforce it. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the 1st Appellate Authority's decision, stating that the impugned order lacked legal basis and the appeal was maintainable.

3. The Tribunal further supported the 1st Appellate Authority's decision by highlighting that the Circular dated 28-4-2008 did not restrict the availing of refund claims by an assessee. The Tribunal found no challenge to the eligibility of the refund claims filed by the Respondent. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced a previous case, establishing that the issue at hand had been settled in another judgment. Therefore, based on the correct interpretation of the law and the absence of any legal flaws, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was valid and legal, ultimately rejecting the appeal.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the correctness of the impugned order, stating that it was legally sound and devoid of any defects. The appeal was considered to lack merit and was consequently rejected. The judgment was pronounced in open court, finalizing the decision on the issues raised during the proceedings.