9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Entitlement to refund of 'Cess' on export of "Hookha Tobacco Paste" in 1993. Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund Claim and Legal Provisions: The issue revolved around the appellants' claim for a refund of Rs. 3,88,990/- paid as 'Cess' on the export of "Hookha Tobacco Paste" in 1993. The Customs authorities pressured the appellants to pay the 'Cess' despite their protest, leading to the payment under protest. The appellants later sought clarification from the Tobacco Board, which supported their view. However, the refund applications were rejected by the Assistant Collector citing provisions of the Tobacco Cess Act, 1975, and the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Assistant Collector's Decision and Appeals: The Assistant Collector, relying on the Customs Act, held that the refund was not applicable as the goods were not re-imported or returned to the exporter as required by the relevant sections. Two separate Orders-in-Original were issued denying the refund. The Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta upheld these orders, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Appellant's Arguments and Legal Precedents: The appellant argued that the 'Cess' collected was illegal since it was not leviable under the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940. They contended that the refund should have been granted suo moto by the Commissioner as the amount was wrongly collected. Citing legal precedents like Shiv Shankar Dal Mills and Atul Products Ltd., the appellant emphasized that there was no law of limitation for returning wrongly recovered amounts. 4. Tribunal's Decision and Rationale: The Tribunal considered whether the refund claim for the 'Cess' collected without legal authority could be rejected under the Customs Act. It was held that the 'Cess' collection was illegal ab initio and should be treated as a deposit to Customs. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that such refund claims fall outside the scope of the Customs Act provisions invoked by the authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, acknowledging the illegality of the 'Cess' collection and granting the refund claim based on the absence of legal authority for the collection. The decision emphasized the inapplicability of certain Customs Act provisions in cases of illegal collections, providing relief to the appellants in this matter.
|
