2016 (11) TMI 466 - HC - Customs

Remission of duty u/s 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - warehoused goods were completely destroyed in the fire - refund with interest - import of 1040 bags of white oats - Held that - Department never disputed the fact that the goods were destroyed - Department was not inclined to accept the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and filed an Appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT, vide order dated 08.08.2012, dismissed the Appeal. - It is a classical case where the Department has failed to take any action in spite of the remission claim having attained finality, pursuant to order of the CESTAT, dated 08.08.2012. The delay from 2012 to 2016 remains unexplained. There cannot be any dispute for the petitioner being entitled for remission of customs duty paid. Therefore, this Court is inclined to issue a positive direction to the respondents to grant remission of the duty and effect refund to the petitioner. The interest of the Department / Revenue has been sufficiently safeguarded as the petitioner has already executed a perpetual indemnity bond which shall be kept alive. Remission of duty allowed - refund of duty paid already allowed - for interest on refund, matter remanded back. - Decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of Mandamus for remittance of duty amount and refund.
2. Failure to process refund claim despite goods destruction.
3. Commissioner of Appeals' order for remission.
4. Department's appeal to CESTAT and subsequent inaction.
5. Delay in refund processing and lack of response to representations.
6. Petitioner's entitlement to duty remission and interest claim.
7. Court's direction for remission and refund.
8. Adjudication of interest claim.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remit the duty amount of ?3,38,353/- and cause a refund following orders by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

2. The petitioner imported goods which were destroyed in a warehouse fire, leading to a refund claim. Despite a direction to process the claim, it was rejected on the grounds of technicalities, without disputing the goods' destruction.

3. The Commissioner of Appeals allowed the appeal, emphasizing the duty remission entitlement under Section 23(1) of the Customs Act, stating the Department did not contest the goods' destruction.

4. The Department's appeal to CESTAT was dismissed, upholding the duty remission. However, subsequent representations and RTI inquiries were met with delays and lack of response.

5. The petitioner faced inaction from the Department despite finality in the remission claim since 2012, with no response to representations or RTI queries, leading to the court intervention.

6. The court noted the Department's failure to act despite favorable orders, directing remission and refund while acknowledging the petitioner's entitlement and execution of an indemnity bond, but deferred the interest claim adjudication.

7. The court issued a positive direction for duty remission and refund, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement based on previous orders, safeguarding the Department's interest with the indemnity bond.

8. While granting remission and refund, the court deferred the interest claim adjudication, directing the Department to issue a show-cause notice and complete the adjudication within three months, considering the missing records and lack of explanation for the delay.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues, court's findings, and the direction provided in the judgment.