2015 (11) TMI 1324 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Excess duty paid - Held that - Though the Revenue has filed appeal against this Tribunal order dated 5/9/2013 but no stay has been granted by Hon ble Mumbai High Court. It is also observed that implementing the Tribunal order, Revenue has already sanctioned the refund therefore I do not understand why the consequential relief of the refund i.e. interest should not be given to the assessee. Even as per the CBEC Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX dated 1/1/2013, if the Revenue is not in position to obtain the stay within three months from the date of order of the Tribunal, the order allowing refund should be implemented and refund should be granted. In the present case the refund has already been granted despite filing the appeal before the High Court therefore interest being piggy back of the refund should also be granted. - it is clear that without stay, order of the Tribunal has to be implemented which is the requirement of the principle of judicial discipline. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order; hence, the same is sustained - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for interest on delayed refund sanction.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondent for interest on a delayed refund sanction. The case revolved around the import of a Dredging vessel for LNG facility construction and subsequent refund claims. The respondent initially paid excess Customs duty on bunkers during import, sought a refund upon re-export, and faced rejection leading to an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, granting interest on the refund amount. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing against granting interest until the High Court's decision on their appeal against the Tribunal's order.

The Tribunal, led by Member Ramesh Nair, analyzed the situation. Despite the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's order, no stay was granted by the High Court. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had already sanctioned the refund, as per CBEC Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX, which mandates refund implementation if no stay is obtained within three months. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to withhold interest, considering the refund had been granted. The Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly emphasized the binding nature of the Tribunal's order in the absence of a stay, ensuring implementation for judicial discipline. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to grant interest and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the eligibility of the respondent for interest on the delayed refund sanction, in accordance with the Tribunal's order and judicial principles. The decision highlighted the importance of implementing tribunal orders in the absence of a stay, emphasizing judicial discipline and adherence to legal procedures.