9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1050 - AT - Central ExciseImposition of redemption fine and penalty - Refund claim - duty paid under protest - benefit of N/N. 52/2003-Cus. dt. 31/03/2003 - stay order against arrears - HELD THAT - This issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Tribunal in appellant own case, INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS BANGALORE 2018 (5) TMI 1623 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein it has been consistently held that Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 is attracted only when the confirmation of demand has attained finality and in the present case, the demand has not attained finality rather the pending cases on the basis of which the original authority has adjusted the refund claim has also been decided by the Tribunal. The impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore the same is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of duty free import claim - Validity of redemption fine and penalty - Appropriation of refund against arrears Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal against rejection of duty free import claim The appeal was directed against the order rejecting the appellant's claim for duty free import of goods like smoke and fire alarm, AC leakage detector, and wall systems. The Department notified the appellant that the goods were not specified for duty free import under Notification No.52/2003-Cus. The adjudicating authority confirmed duty on certain goods, imposed redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962. The appellant sought refund, which was partially granted. The Commissioner(Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal noted the arguments of both sides and found that the redemption fine and penalty imposed had been set aside in previous Tribunal orders. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the confirmation of demand must attain finality for Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 to apply. As the demands had not reached finality, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. Issue 2: Validity of redemption fine and penalty The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as it failed to appreciate the facts and binding judicial precedents. The Tribunal found that the redemption fine and penalty imposed had been set aside in prior Tribunal orders. The appellant cited various decisions, including Bakelite Hylam Ltd. case, ABB Ltd. case, and others, to support their argument. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable only when the demand confirmation is final. As the demands were not final, the Tribunal held that the redemption fine and penalty were not sustainable. The Tribunal, following the cited precedents, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. Issue 3: Appropriation of refund against arrears The Tribunal considered the argument that the appropriation of refund against arrears confirmed in previous orders was not valid. The appellant contended that the demands in those cases had not reached finality, making the appropriation improper. Citing the ABB Ltd. case, the Tribunal noted that appropriation of refund against pending customs appeals that had not attained finality was not legal. The Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that appropriation of refund against disputed pending customs appeals without finality in demand confirmation was not legally sound. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief based on the cited precedents and legal principles.
|
