2016 (5) TMI 187 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Rent paid on behalf of the Revenue to CWC warehouse - Seizure of some indigenous goods - Appellant paid duty, redemption fine and penalties and sought release of the goods as per adjudication order but while releasing the goods, the appellant was asked to pay an amount on account of rent to Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), NCH, New Delhi which was paid by the appellant under protest. Held that - in adjudication order, the appellant is asked to pay redemption fine, penalties and the duty applicable on the goods in question. The appellant has paid the same, therefore, the goods were required to be released to the appellant on payment of the amounts confirmed as per adjudication order. The adjudicating authority has not passed any order for payment of rent by the appellant for the period of seizure of goods. In these circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay rent. As the appellant has paid an amount on account of rent in favour of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), NCH, New Delhi under protest, the said amount is refundable to the appellant as the appellant has no liability to pay rent. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial for rent paid on behalf of Revenue to CWC warehouse.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of a refund claim for rent paid on behalf of the Revenue to CWC warehouse. The facts revealed that goods, both imported and indigenous, were seized during an investigation. While the seizure of imported goods was accepted, the indigenous goods were taken to a new custom house and later to a CWC warehouse without the appellant's knowledge. After adjudication, the goods were allowed to be redeemed by the appellant on payment of redemption fine, penalties, and duty. Subsequently, the appellant was asked to pay rent to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), NCH, New Delhi, for the period the goods were stored at the CWC warehouse. The appellant paid the rent under protest and later filed a refund claim, which was rejected on the grounds of limitation and finality of the adjudication order. The appellant contended that since the adjudication order did not mandate payment of rent, they were not liable to pay rent and the amount paid should be refunded. The appellant argued that as the goods were in the custody of Revenue, they had no right to remove them, making the rent payable by the Revenue.

The appellate tribunal, after considering the submissions, observed that the adjudication order only required the appellant to pay redemption fine, penalties, and duty, which were duly paid. The adjudicating authority did not direct the appellant to pay rent for the period of goods seizure. Therefore, the tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay rent. As the appellant paid the rent under protest, the tribunal deemed the amount refundable as the appellant had no obligation to pay rent. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced on 5.12.2015.