2017 (5) TMI 1229 - AT - Customs

Whether the goods imported by the appellant, during the relevant period, were liable to provisions of Section 49 or Section 59 of CA, 1962? Held that - there was error on the part of Shri N.B. Shukla, Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-II, Ghaziabad who has rejected the application for refund of ₹ 4,11,365/- which was required to be allowed as consequence of the Final Order No.A/54767/2014 (BR) dated 11.12.2014 - Commissioner of Central Excise-Ghaziabad directed to implement said Final Order dated 11.12.2014 by refunding ₹ 4,11,365/- along with due interest as per law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of amount under Customs Act, 1962 - Section 49 vs. Section 59.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking direction for the implementation of Final Order No.A/54767/2014-SM (BR) dated 11.12.2014. The case revolved around the question of whether goods imported by the appellant were liable under Section 49 or Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal, in its final order dated 11.12.2014, determined that the goods were initially kept in the warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the appellant requested a refund of ?4,11,365/-, which was realized by the Department through encashment of a bank guarantee. The Order-in-Original dated 15.03.2016 revealed that the appellants paid ?1,79,416/- in cash and were directed to furnish a bank guarantee of ?4,11,613/-. The jurisdictional authority rejected the refund claim of ?4,11,365/-, leading to the appellant's contention that the rejection amounted to not honoring the Tribunal's order without challenge.

The appellant contended that the Tribunal had conclusively established that the goods were kept in the warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962, and were entitled to consequential relief. The respondents were directed to provide comments on the application, wherein they admitted the contentions put forth by the appellant. The learned Counsel argued that the revenue had acknowledged the contentions in the application and requested the refund along with interest. The revenue, represented by the learned A.R., supported the comments submitted earlier.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found an error on the part of the Assistant Commissioner who rejected the refund application. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Central Excise-Ghaziabad to implement the Final Order dated 11.12.2014 by refunding ?4,11,365/- along with due interest within 60 days from the receipt of the order. Consequently, the miscellaneous application was allowed, emphasizing the implementation of the Tribunal's order for the refund amount under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.