2016 (11) TMI 1397 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - duty paid under protest - It is the case of appellant both the lower authorities have totally overlooked the fact that the deposit of the amount was based upon Inter ministerial deliberation and subsequently there are various judgments on the very same issue which needs to be considered by the lower authorities - Held that - Since the issue needs factual verification as to the amounts deposited by the appellant with reference to the advance licence issued to the contractors and also to consider the identical issue being decided in respect of very same appellant, and as the impugned order as well as the adjudication order did not specify the reasons for not accepting the submission of the appellant, the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim eligibility for amounts deposited under protest during a relevant period.

Analysis:
The appeals were against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 10 to 17/2006/MCH/AC/VII/05, all pertaining to the same assessee and a common question of law. The issue at hand was whether the appellant could file a refund claim for amounts paid under protest to the department during the relevant period. The appellant had undertaken a project funded by the World Bank, which entitled them to exemption from customs duty on imported goods. However, due to delays in the World Bank loan, the Ministry of Finance required the customs duty to be deposited. Following an Inter Ministerial meeting, the appellant deposited the duty under protest. Upon receiving the World Bank loan, the appellant sought a refund, which was rejected citing lack of documents, non-original importer status, and limitation issues. The appellant argued that the deposit was based on Inter Ministerial deliberation and referred to similar judgments on the matter.

The Tribunal noted the need for factual verification regarding the amounts deposited by the appellant and the advance licenses issued to contractors. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the lack of reasons provided by the lower authorities for rejecting the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of following principles of natural justice. The appellant was instructed to cooperate and present relevant documents. The adjudicating authority was directed to resolve the issue within three months from the date of the order's certified copy production.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of by remanding it to the adjudicating authority for further review, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.