2013 (1) TMI 334 - AT - Customs

Interest on warehoused goods - Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) rejected 14 numbers of refund claims in remand proceedings - unjust enrichment - Held that - As submitted by assessee that provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable to refund of interest covered under Section 61 (3) of the Customs Act relying on Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs CC Chennai 2001 (3) TMI 786 - CEGAT, CHENNAI case which has been upheld by Supreme Court in 2001 (11) TMI 974 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. As the appellant did not place decisions of the Tribunal which was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court on this issue before the lower authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), however, remanded the matter to the lower authority to decide the case both on merits and on unjust enrichment. In this context, it is proper that the lower authority should examine the decision of the Tribunal as upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court on this issue in the context of applicability of the unjust enrichment. In view of that, the order of the Commissioner (appeals) is upheld with a direction that the lower authority would examine the applicability of unjust enrichment with the case law. The appeal is disposed in the above terms.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of circulars issued by the Board regarding interest on warehoused goods.
2. Rejection of refund claims of interest on warehoused goods due to non-submission of necessary documents.
3. Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 to refund of interest under Section 61(3) of the Customs Act.
4. Commissioner's decision to remand the matter for supplying documents related to unjust enrichment.
5. Examination of Tribunal decisions upheld by the Supreme Court on the issue of unjust enrichment.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Circulars:
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority based on circular No.62/99-cus clarifying the issue of revised interest on goods warehoused before a specified date. The circular emphasized that the revised interest was applicable from a certain date and instructed the authorities to review cases accordingly. The order of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner was set aside, directing a re-adjudication in light of the circular.

Issue 2: Rejection of Refund Claims:
In the remand proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected 14 refund claims of interest on warehoused goods due to non-submission of documents related to unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, instructing the appellant to provide the necessary documents to decide the case on merit and unjust enrichment.

Issue 3: Applicability of Customs Act Sections:
The advocate argued that Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not apply to refund of interest under Section 61(3) based on previous tribunal decisions upheld by the Supreme Court. The Joint Commissioner supported the Commissioner's decision to remand the matter for documents related to unjust enrichment.

Issue 4: Unjust Enrichment Documents:
The Commissioner's decision to remand the matter for supplying documents related to unjust enrichment was upheld. The lower authority was directed to examine the applicability of unjust enrichment with relevant case law.

Issue 5: Examination of Tribunal Decisions:
The Tribunal found that the appellant did not present previous tribunal decisions upheld by the Supreme Court on the issue of unjust enrichment before the lower authority. Despite this, the Commissioner's decision to remand the matter for examination of the tribunal decisions on unjust enrichment was upheld. The lower authority was directed to consider the applicability of unjust enrichment with the provided case law.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the direction for the lower authority to examine the applicability of unjust enrichment with relevant case law, as per the decisions of the Commissioner and the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →