2021 (4) TMI 314 - HC - Customs

Refund claim redemption fine and penalty, since the demand was set aside - Revenue contended that the claim is unsupported by documents - applicability of time limitation - refund claim is after 14 years of alleged deposit - CEGAT did not direct refund of redemption fine and penalty - the consignment has been removed from the customs area and goods not available for confiscation. Refund is made by respondent without supporting documents - HELD THAT - This ground is raised by the appellant without firstly taking note of the observation made by the Commissioner of Appeals in Annexure-B order wherein the claim of respondent with the documents available and produced by respondent has been accepted as sufficient for processing the claim of refund. The Department, if was desirous of challenging the said finding ought to have maintained an appeal before the CESTAT. Having not pursued the remedy against anything recorded on the proof now produced by the respondent, the ground that the refund Customs Appeal is made without supporting documents is unsustainable in law and fact, the contention is rejected. Time Limitation as per Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - From a bare reading of Section 27, it is clear that Section 27 deals with refund of duty/interest. We have read the definition of 'duty' to ascertain whether 'duty' in any situation includes redemption fine and penalty as well. The definition of word 'duty' does not give an indication to the said effect. In other words, according to definition in Section 2(15) of Customs Act, 1962, 'duty' means duty leviable under the Act. Section 27, in our considered view, does not Customs Appeal No.3/2018 deal with a claim for redemption fine and penalty. The said contention is unsustainable and accordingly rejected. The next argument is that the Tribunal through orders dated 08.12.1988 and 01.03.1995 did not direct refund of redemption fine and penalty to the respondent - HELD THAT - Had it been a case where the redemption fine and penalty are set aside, different considerations apply. Here is a case where the matter has been remitted to the primary authority for fresh decision. With a view to continuing to collect or demand or retain redemption fine/penalty, order to that effect is a condition precedent. In the absence of an order, the Department cannot continue to withhold what has been collected as redemption fine and penalty. Hence, the last ground canvassed by the appellant is also unsustainable in law and Customs Appeal accordingly rejected. The direction for refund of redemption fine amounting to ₹ 25 lakhs and penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs in favour of respondent is sustainable in law and fact - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for refund of redemption fine and penalty.
2. Claim for refund of redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act regarding the refund of duty/interest.
4. Consideration of supporting documents for refund claim.
5. Effect of Tribunal orders on refund of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the CESTAT order for refund of redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal ordered the refund of ?25 lakhs redemption fine and ?5 lakhs penalty paid by the respondent, setting aside the previous orders levying these amounts. The appellant contested the refund claim based on lack of supporting documents and absence of a specific direction for refund by the Tribunal.

2. The respondent imported goods in 1988, facing penalties and fines which were later set aside by Tribunal orders in 1988 and 1995. The respondent applied for a refund in 2011-12, claiming that no valid order existed for the redemption fine and penalty. The Deputy Commissioner initially rejected the claim citing Section 27 of the Customs Act, but the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) accepted the documents provided as proof of payment. The Tribunal allowed the refund, emphasizing that without a specific order levying the fine and penalty, the Revenue cannot retain these amounts.

3. The appellant argued that the refund claim was beyond the one-year limit under Section 27 of the Customs Act. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 27 pertains to duty/interest refunds and does not cover redemption fine and penalty. The Court emphasized that the definition of 'duty' under the Act excludes redemption fine and penalty, making the Section inapplicable to the present case.

4. The Court dismissed the appellant's contention regarding the lack of supporting documents for the refund claim. The Commissioner of Appeals had already accepted the documents provided by the respondent as sufficient proof of payment. The Court noted that the appellant failed to challenge this finding earlier, rendering the argument baseless.

5. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision for the refund of redemption fine and penalty, stating that in the absence of a specific order imposing these amounts, the Revenue cannot withhold them. The Court found the direction for refund to be legally sound and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.