2023 (12) TMI 1363 - AT - Customs

Entitlement of interest in respect of refunds sanctioned - for what duration/period such interest is payable to the respondent importer? Whether interest is payable or not? - HELD THAT - The refund claims filed by the respondent importer on 08.01.2014 is not proper from the angle of completion of documents. Further, such refund claim is also pre-mature in nature, as the assessment finally providing the concessional CVD was extended to the impugned goods on the basis of earlier decision passed in order dated 15.01.2015, by finally assessing the 28 B/Es on 27.03.2018. Further, the angle of unjust enrichment in respect of such refund claims was also examined after the respondent importer submitted additional documents on 30.08.2016. Similarly, in the case of other 2 B/Es, the additional documents were submitted on 27.03.2018 and on 27.04.2018 for completing the submission of proper refund claim. Thus, from these factual evidence also it can be concluded that there is no case of delayed payment of refunds in this case. In terms of the provisions of Section 27 ibid, read with Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995 framed thereunder, the complete refund application was submitted by the Respondent importer only after all the requisite documents evidencing the payment of differential duty, relevant agreements and the sale invoices for the products were produced before the Customs authorities, to demonstrate that the burden of differential duty paid by the importer respondent was not passed on to any other person. Hence, on the factual matrix of the case, it cannot be considered that the refund application in the present case was submitted on 08.04.2014, as claimed by the importer respondent. The assessment order passed under Section 17 ibid, relates to the import of dietary supplement during the period 01.04.2011 to 30.03.2012; whereas the import of dietary supplements for which refunds has been claimed and sanctioned relates to the subsequent period viz., 31.03.2012 to 18.02.2013. Hence, the above facts clearly prove that the assessment order dated 15.01.2015 finalizing the benefit of concessional rate of CVD cannot form the direct basis for claiming consequential refund sanctioned through orders dated 05.10.2016 and 30.05.2018. The stand taken by the learned Advocate that there was no dispute in respect of the twin issues determined by original authority, and the dispute is limited to only the point of determining whether the imported dietary supplement is a food or not, cannot be accepted. It is also a fact that the importer respondent did not object to the order dated passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by filing an appeal, on the above stand. Hence the same cannot be agitated at this stage. For the same reason, the finding given in the impugned order that the dispute in respect of extending concessional benefit of CVD was finalized by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in his order dated 09.10.2014 is also factually incorrect. Hence, there are no merits in the grounds argued by the learned Advocate on this point. The impugned order allowing payment of interest claimed on refunds already sanctioned to the importer respondent, is not legally sustainable and hence the same is set aside - appeals filed by the appellant department is allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether interest is payable by the department to the respondent importer for the refunds sanctioned.
2. If interest is payable, the duration/period for which such interest is payable.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interest Payability on Refunds:

The primary issue was whether the department owed interest to the respondent importer for refunds sanctioned due to excess payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD). The respondent importer argued that the refund claims were delayed, thus entitling them to interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the department contended that the refund claims were processed within the stipulated time after the submission of complete documentation. The Tribunal examined the factual matrix and legal provisions, concluding that the refund claims were incomplete until all necessary documents were submitted. Therefore, the interest was not payable as the refunds were sanctioned within the prescribed period after the complete submission of documents.

2. Duration/Period of Interest Payability:

The Tribunal analyzed whether the interest, if payable, should be calculated from the date of the initial refund application or from the date of complete submission of documents. The Tribunal referred to legal provisions under Section 27 and the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995, which specify that the date of receipt of a complete application is crucial for determining interest payability. The Tribunal found that the complete refund application was submitted only after the requisite documents were provided, thus negating the claim for interest from the initial application date. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim was pre-mature and incomplete initially, and interest on delayed refunds does not arise in such circumstances.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order that allowed the payment of interest on the refunds, ruling in favor of the appellant department. It held that the interest was not payable as the refunds were processed within the stipulated timeframe after the submission of all necessary documents. The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed examination of the factual matrix, legal provisions, and precedents, ensuring that the refund process adhered to the statutory requirements.