9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 118 - AT - CustomsDenial of refund of pre deposit - Penalty waived by Tribunal 2013 (7) TMI 80 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Held that - It is observed that Revenue has retained the pre-deposit amount for more than 2 years after passing of the final order of this Tribunal for no reason. The Revenue neither filed an appeal against this Tribunal order nor obtained any stay, therefore, it is clear case of harassment to the assesse that the legitimate claim of the applicant has not been granted. Therefore, the Commissioner (Export), JNCH, Mumbai is directed to dispose of the claim of the applicants within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of this order - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Delay in refund of pre-deposit amount after passing of final order by the Tribunal
Issue 1: Delay in refund of pre-deposit amount The judgment deals with applications filed under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for the implementation of a Tribunal order where the penalty imposed under section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 was dropped. The applicants sought a refund of the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 1 lakh after the final order was passed. However, despite submitting a letter for refund, the amount was not refunded for over two years. The Revenue had not filed an appeal or obtained a stay, leading to the conclusion that the retention of the pre-deposit amount was unjustified. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Export), JNCH, Mumbai to dispose of the claim within a month from the date of the order, highlighting the harassment caused to the applicant due to the delay in refund. Analysis: The judgment highlights the importance of timely refund of pre-deposit amounts following Tribunal orders. It emphasizes that the Revenue's failure to act promptly in refunding the amount, especially when no appeal was filed or stay obtained, amounts to harassment of the applicant. The Tribunal's direction to dispose of the claim within a specified timeframe underscores the need for efficiency and fairness in dealing with refund applications post-Tribunal orders. This decision serves as a reminder of the duty of authorities to promptly implement Tribunal orders and ensure that legitimate claims are not unduly delayed or denied.
|
