2016 (2) TMI 55 - HC - Customs

Refund of 4% special additional duty - Jurisdiction - SAD was collected on the purchases made by the petitioners from the units situated in the SEZ - According to the petitioners, as per Government of India decision, such additional duty was not payable - Held that - the petitioners refund claims remain in suspended animation on account of confusion between the Customs Department and the SEZ organizations, we direct the competent authority under the Commissionerate of Customs to dispose of all refund applications on merits, preferably by 31.03.2016.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excess duty collected by Customs authorities in Special Economic Zones (SEZs), authority to process refund applications, power of Customs authorities to grant refunds, statutory provisions under Customs Act, mechanism for refund claims in SEZ areas.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around petitions seeking directions for Customs Commissionerate and SEZ authorities to decide refund applications for excess duty collected in SEZ purchases. The petitioners argue that 4% special additional duty collected was not payable as per Government decision, entitling them to refunds. The Division Bench previously held that Customs authorities have the power to process and decide refund applications, emphasizing statutory provisions under the Customs Act, 1962.

The Court highlighted that the Ministry of Finance's attempt to change the refund mechanism without statutory amendments was incorrect. It stressed that the power to grant refunds lies with the Customs authorities, as duty collection falls under the Customs Act, particularly Section 27. The judgment cited the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that refund claims must be made under the respective enactments within prescribed limitations.

The Court declared the Ministry's directives invalid and affirmed that Customs Commissionerate retains authority to entertain refund claims for SEZ units until proper mechanisms are established under SEZ laws. It directed the Customs authority to dispose of refund applications on merits by a specified date, clarifying that refund claims should be represented to the appropriate authority if returned, with the limitation period and interest computation from the original presentation date.

In conclusion, due to confusion between Customs Department and SEZ organizations, the Court directed the Customs authority to process refund applications, emphasizing the statutory powers under the Customs Act and dismissing the Ministry's attempt to alter the refund mechanism without proper legislative provisions. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures for refund claims and highlights the authority of Customs authorities in processing such claims, especially in SEZ areas.