2023 (1) TMI 1057 - AT - Customs

Interest on the refund amount of pre-deposit - rejection on the ground that original copy of bill of entry and TR-6 challan could not be made available - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly held that the amount remained with the revenue unadjusted by way of pre-deposit. It is further found under the facts and circumstances, that such pre-deposit was made under protest which is writ large on the face of the record. There is no merits on the grounds of appeal raised by revenue. Relying on the ruling of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in M/S. PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS SERVICE TAX, NOIDA (VICE-VERSA) 2021 (5) TMI 870 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , the Cross-objections with directions to the revenue to grant interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Such interest on refund should be granted within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appeal filed by revenue is dismissed and Cross-objection by assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of pre-deposit amount during investigation.
2. Granting of interest on the refund amount.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the refund of a pre-deposit amount made by the respondent-assessee during an investigation conducted by the revenue. The investigation revealed alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods, leading to the detention and seizure of goods. The appellant was required to deposit Rs. 40 lakhs, which was done through TR 6 challans. Subsequently, the goods were provisionally released, and no show cause notice was received by the assessee. The refund claim was filed after about six years, which was rejected initially due to the unavailability of certain documents. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amount deposited was in the nature of a pre-deposit made during the investigation, and directed the revenue to grant the refund.

2. The revenue appealed against this decision, arguing that there was no provision under the Customs Act for making a pre-deposit during investigation. Additionally, they contended that the refund claim was filed after six years without a protest letter at the time of deposit. The revenue also highlighted the failure of the appellant to produce necessary documents for the refund claim. On the other hand, the respondent-assessee argued that the amount remained with the revenue unadjusted, and the pre-deposit was made under the oral instructions of the department during the investigation. They further claimed entitlement to interest on the pre-deposit amount from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions of both parties, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the pre-deposit amount. The Tribunal noted that the pre-deposit was made under protest, as evident from the circumstances of the case. Relying on a previous ruling of the Division Bench in a similar matter, the Tribunal allowed the cross-objections filed by the assessee and directed the revenue to grant interest at a rate of 6% per annum on the refund amount from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the revenue and ordered the interest on the refund to be granted within 45 days from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the respondent-assessee, upholding the refund of the pre-deposit amount made during the investigation and granting interest on the refund amount as per the relevant notification and previous rulings.