2017 (6) TMI 1095 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - rejection on the ground that appellant could not furnish the required evidence - Held that - once the Hon ble High Court of Kerala in its order dated 12.11.2014 had specifically given direction that on producing identity and account details refund shall be effected to the petitioner within a period of four weeks and after the judgment of the Kerala High Court the appellant has produced the certificate obtained from the Padi Village Office, Government of Kerala and also an affidavit clarifying that Mohammad Shaheed, Sahid M and Sahid Mohammad are one and the same person. Moreover, his identity was never in dispute from the very beginning even during investigation. His statement was recorded and he is appearing before the officers of the custom and this reason has been coined by the original authority only for the purpose of denial of rightful claim of refund. Now since the appellant has clarified about his identity also, therefore there is no reason left for the respondent to deny the refund claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on lack of necessary documents; Appellant's identity verification; Entitlement to interest on delayed refund payment.

Refund Claim Rejection:
The appeal challenged an order rejecting a refund claim due to the appellant's failure to provide necessary documents as demanded by the original authority. The appellant had imported a car, and after a series of orders and appeals, the refund application was rejected for not furnishing required documents. The appellant argued that the order was unsustainable as it ignored the High Court's specific directions and raised new grounds to harass him. The appellant contended that his identity was never in dispute, and he had provided sufficient evidence, including a certificate and an affidavit, to prove his eligibility for the refund. The appellant also highlighted that unjust enrichment did not apply in personal import cases and cited relevant legal provisions and case laws to support his claim for interest on the delayed refund payment.

Identity Verification:
The appellant's identity verification was a crucial aspect of the case. The High Court had directed that on producing identity and account details, the refund should be processed within a specified time frame. The appellant submitted a certificate and an affidavit to establish his identity, emphasizing that his identity had never been in question during the investigation. The Tribunal found that the original authority's denial of the refund claim based on identity issues was unjustified, especially after the appellant had provided the necessary documents to prove his identity conclusively.

Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Refund Payment:
The issue of entitlement to interest on delayed refund payment was raised by the appellant, citing provisions of the Customs Act and relevant case laws. The appellant argued that as the refund claim was submitted in 2007 and not processed within the stipulated time frame, he was entitled to interest on the delayed payment. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention and held that the appellants were entitled to the refund amount along with interest as per the law. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and directing the refund of the claimed amount along with interest as per the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing necessary documents, establishing identity, and ensuring timely processing of refund claims in accordance with legal provisions and court directives.