2009 (3) TMI 468 - HC - Customs

Refund- Documents- The petitioner had imported a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado car. In respect of aforesaid vehicle, proceedings under the Customs Act were initiated and an adjudication order was passed and the petitioner was called upon to pay duty, fine and penalty. He paid the amount due and the vehicle was also released. Remittance made by petitioner or identity of the person who remitted or amount that is due to be refunded to petitioner is not disputed. Only contention against the petitioner is that TR6 Challan he produced was only an attested copy. Held it is purely a technical contention which cannot be accepted. Petitioner complied with requirement under C.B.E. & C. Circular F.No. 275/37/2K-CX. 8A, dated 02.01.2002. thus refund allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund application processing without original TR 6 Challan.

Analysis:
The petitioner imported a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado car and faced proceedings under the Customs Act, resulting in an adjudication order requiring payment of duty, fine, and penalty, which the petitioner complied with for the vehicle's release. Subsequently, the vehicle was registered upon producing a TR 6 Challan. The petitioner appealed the adjudication order, leading to a refund application being filed after the duty, fine, and penalty were reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the refund application was not entertained due to the petitioner submitting an attested copy of the TR 6 Challan instead of the original.

The respondent contended that the original TR 6 Challan is mandatory for processing the refund application. The court noted that there was no dispute regarding the remittance made by the petitioner, the identity of the remitter, or the amount to be refunded. The main contention against the petitioner was the submission of an attested copy of the TR 6 Challan, deemed a technical issue by the court.

The court referred to a clarification order by the Government of India, stating that a letter from the depositor, the appellate order, and an attested Xerox copy of the TR 6 Challan are sufficient for processing refund applications. As the petitioner had met these requirements, the court found the petitioner in compliance with the clarification and directed the respondent to process the refund application promptly and refund the amount due as per the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) within four weeks of the judgment's copy production.