2017 (9) TMI 756 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Limitation - Held that - the Revenue is totally misdirected in approaching this Tribunal by challenging the order of Hon ble High Court alleging that the said order did not lay down the correct position of law. We find such prayer before the Tribunal is untenable - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order allowing refund claim on limitation
2. Challenge to the correctness of the High Court's judgment
3. Misdirection by the Revenue in approaching the Tribunal

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI was filed by the Revenue against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the assessee's claim for a refund on limitation. The Commissioner directed the Original Authority to consider the claim and pass fresh orders based on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue contested this decision, questioning whether the High Court's judgment laid down the correct law and if the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while dealing with the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue sought to set aside the impugned order on these grounds, citing a pending SLP in a similar matter involving Willhem Textile.

2. The Appellate Tribunal, upon hearing the arguments, found the Revenue's approach to be misdirected. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's challenge to the High Court's order alleging incorrect interpretation of the law was untenable. The Tribunal clarified that it was not sitting in appeal against the High Court's order and criticized the Revenue for lacking an understanding of basic legal principles. The Tribunal highlighted that there was no contrary decision from a higher court to the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the Revenue's appeal devoid of merit and dismissed it.

3. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow the refund claim on limitation based on the High Court's judgment. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's challenge to the correctness of the High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of understanding legal principles before approaching the Tribunal. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeal signifies the Tribunal's stance on the misdirection by the Revenue in challenging the High Court's order without proper legal grounds.