2016 (8) TMI 184 - HC - Customs

Claim of refund of excess CVD paid on import of mobile handsets including cellular phones. - mobile handsets including cellular phones - Held that - it is not open to the Authority to refuse to consider the application for refund only because an appeal has not been filed against the assessment order. With the Petitioner having already placed all the relevant documents on record and with the only reason for rejection of the refund application being the untenable ground of alleged failure by the Petitioner to submit reassessed B/Es, the Court sees no reason why the Respondents should be permitted to deny the Petitioner the grant of refund any longer. Accordingly, the refund claim filed by the Petitioner on 28th December 2015 is allowed. The Respondents will now pay to the Petitioner the amount of refund as claimed together with interest due thereon up to the date of refund not later than two weeks from today. - Decided against the revenue cost.

Issues Involved:

1. Refund claim for excess additional customs duty paid.
2. Requirement of reassessed Bills of Entry for refund claims.
3. Compliance with binding judicial decisions by statutory authorities.
4. Unjust enrichment and submission of supporting documents.
5. Judicial discipline and adherence to higher appellate authorities' orders.
6. Consequences of defiance by statutory authorities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim for Excess Additional Customs Duty Paid:
The petitioner sought a refund for excess additional customs duty paid under Section 3(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, in connection with the importation of mobile phones. The petitioner paid 6% CVD instead of the applicable 1% as per Notification No. 12/2012-CE, as amended. The Supreme Court in SRF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs clarified that for quantifying CVD on imported goods, it should be presumed that the goods were manufactured in India and the excise duty leviable should be ascertained. The petitioner's refund claim of ?2,10,96,725 was filed on 28th December 2015.

2. Requirement of Reassessed Bills of Entry for Refund Claims:
Respondent No. 4 rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the petitioner did not provide reassessed Bills of Entry, an audited balance sheet, a CA certificate for unjust enrichment, and a calculation sheet certified by a statutory auditor. The petitioner argued that under Section 27 of the Customs Act, there was no requirement for reassessment of Bills of Entry for claiming a refund. The High Court in Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. Union of India clarified that an application for refund should be considered even if no appeal was filed against the assessment order.

3. Compliance with Binding Judicial Decisions by Statutory Authorities:
The court emphasized that statutory authorities must comply with binding judicial decisions. Respondent No. 4 ignored the Supreme Court's decision in SRF Ltd. and the High Court's decision in Micromax Informatics, citing pending appeals as a reason. The court noted that unless the operation of these decisions was stayed by a competent court, they remained binding. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. underscored the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to appellate authorities' orders.

4. Unjust Enrichment and Submission of Supporting Documents:
The petitioner submitted various documents, including details of bills of entry, challans, a working sheet, and an affidavit stating that the refund claim was not barred by limitation. Despite this, Respondent No. 4 cited the lack of reassessed Bills of Entry and other documents as reasons for rejecting the claim. The court found these grounds untenable, especially since the petitioner had complied with the requirements under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

5. Judicial Discipline and Adherence to Higher Appellate Authorities' Orders:
The court reiterated the necessity for revenue officers to follow the decisions of higher appellate authorities unreservedly. The failure to do so causes undue harassment to assessees and chaos in tax administration. The Gujarat High Court in E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India highlighted that non-compliance with binding decisions could lead to prosecution under the Contempt of Courts Act.

6. Consequences of Defiance by Statutory Authorities:
The court set aside the impugned order dated 7th July 2016 by Respondent No. 4, directing the respondents to pay the refund amount with interest to the petitioner within two weeks. It also ordered Respondent No. 3 to seek an explanation from Respondent No. 4 for the conscious violation of the law and take appropriate action. The court awarded costs of ?10,000 to the petitioner, to be paid by the respondents within four weeks.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to process the refund claim without further delay, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline and compliance with binding judicial decisions.

← Previous Next →