2016 (9) TMI 414 - AT - Customs

Refund claim demand part amount paid during investigation process matter appealed to tribunal refund of amount claimed before original authority, where it was held that the demand was immature as case not decided yet - having the case decided by the tribunal do appellant require to file fresh refund claim ? Held that - the appellant had filed refund claim in respect of deposit made during the investigation. Therefore, the sanctioning authority should not have held that the refund is premature, whereas he was supposed to pass a reasoned adjudication order no fresh claim required to be filed matter remanded to original authority for reasoned and speaking order appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding refund claim for pre-deposit made during investigation.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s Smit Salvage B.V., filed appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-SMP-400 to 407-13-14 dated 26.11.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I. The appellant had paid a part amount during the investigation of a demand case, and while the demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority, a refund claim was filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The Assistant Commissioner deemed the refund premature and instructed to file it after the finalization of adjudication proceedings. The appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals). Meanwhile, the Tribunal decided on the demand case partially in favor of the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeals stating that the appellant can now file a refund claim after obtaining relief from the Tribunal. The appellant contested this decision before the Tribunal.

Shri V.K. Jain, representing the appellants, argued that the amount deposited during the investigation was not supposed to be paid, justifying the refund claim. He referred to legal precedents to support the position that the amount collected during investigation should be refunded if claimed. He contended that the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding the refund as premature, citing the need for a reasoned order as per Tribunal rulings.

On the other hand, Shri M.K. Sarangi, representing the Revenue, supported the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing that a fresh refund claim could be filed after the Tribunal's decision on the demand case.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the appellant's refund claim for the pre-deposit made during the investigation was valid. The sanctioning authority should have provided a reasoned adjudication order instead of deeming the refund premature. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to issue a fresh order on the refund claims. The appeals were allowed for a remand to pass a detailed order on the refund related to the pre-deposit made during the demand case investigation.