9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 1 - SC - CustomsRefund - The Deputy Commissioner of Customs has rejected the refund claim of appellant on the ground of unjust enrichment and failure to challenge the assessment of the Bills of Entry at the appellate stage, without even considering the Essentiality Certificates in the light of specific and binding directions of the High Court. - Held that - this Court (SC) in Priya Blue (2004 -TMI - 47045 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), adopting the ratio of the Flock (2000 -TMI - 45478 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), has held that a refund claim under the Act is not an appeal proceeding and the officer considering a refund claim cannot sit in appeal or review an assessment order made by a competent authority. Such assessment order is final unless it is reviewed and/or modified in an appeal. If for any reason, the subordinate authority is of the view that the directions issued by the Court is contrary to statutory provision or well established principles of law, it can approach the same Court with necessary application/petition for clarification or modification or approach the superior forum for appropriate reliefs. In the present case, as we have already noticed, the respondents have not questioned the order passed by the High Court, which order has reached finality. In such circumstances, we cannot permit the adjudicating authority to circumvent the order passed by the High Court. Refund claim of appellant has been erroneously rejected by the Deputy Commissioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the adjudicating authority was justified in rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of the duty paid under the Customs Act, 1962 without considering Essentiality Certificates produced later, despite specific directions from the Delhi High Court. 2. The applicability and correctness of the judgments in CCE v. Flock (India) (P) Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) regarding refund claims under the Customs Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification for Rejecting Refund Claim Without Considering Essentiality Certificates: The appellant, an importer of spares for petroleum operations, had imported three consignments and filed the Bills of Entry. The goods were exempt from customs duty under Notification No. 21/2002, subject to the production of Essentiality Certificates from the Director General of Hydrocarbons (DGH), based on recommendatory letters from ONGC. The appellant's requests for these letters were initially refused, leading to full payment of customs duty under protest due to commercial exigencies. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court, which directed ONGC to issue the recommendatory letters, resulting in the issuance of Essentiality Certificates by the DGH. The High Court then directed the customs authorities to consider the refund claims taking these certificates into account. Despite this, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment and failure to challenge the assessment of the Bills of Entry. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's direction under Article 226 was binding and aimed at promoting justice and preventing injustice. The customs authorities were obligated to follow this direction. The rejection of the refund claim without considering the Essentiality Certificates and the High Court's specific directions was erroneous. 2. Applicability and Correctness of CCE v. Flock (India) (P) Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive): The appellant's counsel argued that the decisions in Flock and Priya Blue were incorrectly decided and required reconsideration. These cases held that a refund claim is not maintainable if an assessment order, which is appealable, has not been challenged. The appellant contended that Section 27 of the Customs Act allows for a refund claim even after the final assessment order, distinct from claims under Section 18 for provisional assessments. The Supreme Court, however, chose not to delve into the merits of these arguments due to the specific facts of the present case. The Court emphasized that the High Court's directions were clear and binding, and the subordinate authority's failure to follow them constituted a denial of justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the customs authorities to consider the appellant's refund claim in accordance with the Delhi High Court's order, taking into account the Essentiality Certificates issued by the DGH. The Court underscored the importance of adhering to judicial directions to ensure justice and maintain the hierarchy of courts. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
