2014 (6) TMI 123 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Claim rejected as pre mature - Held that - Revenue cannot claim that the refund claim is premature. This Tribunal had directed the revenue to finalise the assessment in terms of quantity received in the shore tank and to grant refund in accordance with law. However, even after a lapse of 9 years, the Revenue claims that the refund claim is premature. Once a decision has been given by the Tribunal clearly indicating the basis for determination of the duty, it was incumbent on the Revenue to finalise the assessment on the basis of those directions and to provide consequential relief to the appellant. Even after 9 years of the passing of the said order, the department has failed to implement the direction of the Tribunal and has rejected the refund claim of the appellant saying that it is premature. This action on the part of the department reveals the utter contempt and judicial indiscipline on the part of the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
- Rejection of refund application as premature
- Finalization of assessment based on Tribunal's order
- Contempt and judicial indiscipline by Revenue

Analysis:
1. Rejection of Refund Application as Premature:
The appellant, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), had imported crude oil and petroleum products, with a duty demand confirmed based on certain prescribed guidelines. The appellant raised discrepancies, leading to a re-quantification of the duty demanded. Despite paying 50% of the duty and following the appeal process, the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal, which was further challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in a previous order, directed the Revenue to finalize the assessment based on the quantity received in the shore tank and provide consequential relief. However, the lower adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim as premature, even after several reminders and a significant lapse of time. The Tribunal found the Revenue's claim of prematurity baseless, emphasizing that the Revenue's failure to implement the Tribunal's directions displayed contempt and judicial indiscipline.

2. Finalization of Assessment Based on Tribunal's Order:
The Tribunal's previous order mandated the quantification of duty based on the quantity received in the shore tank, not on ships' ullage. It also directed the Revenue to finalize the assessment accordingly and grant refund as per the law. The Tribunal's decision was not contested by the Revenue and had attained finality. Despite this, the Revenue failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions for almost a decade, leading to the rejection of the refund claim on the pretext of prematurity. The Tribunal, in the present judgment, set aside the lower appellate authority's decision as legally unsustainable and allowed the appeal, directing the Revenue to provide consequential relief promptly in line with its previous order.

3. Contempt and Judicial Indiscipline by Revenue:
The Tribunal strongly criticized the Revenue for its failure to implement the Tribunal's directions for finalizing the assessment and providing the appellant with the consequential relief as per the law. The Tribunal highlighted the Revenue's disregard for the Tribunal's orders over a prolonged period, characterizing it as contemptuous and reflective of judicial indiscipline. Consequently, the Tribunal overturned the lower appellate authority's decision, deeming it legally unsustainable, and instructed the Revenue to grant the appellant the relief without delay, in accordance with the Tribunal's prior order.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of premature rejection of the refund application, the Revenue's non-compliance with the Tribunal's directions for assessment finalization, and the Revenue's contemptuous behavior and judicial indiscipline. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of implementing judicial directives promptly and upholding legal obligations.

← Previous Next →