2009 (8) TMI 539 - HC - Customs

Demand- A Show Cause Notice served on Custom House Agent who had acted as authorized agent for importer for the purpose of making a refund application. Authorization does not in any way indicate that it is a general authorization does not in any way indicate that it is a general authorization which can go on to a large extent that what has been indicated therein. Proceeding under section 28 of Custom Act, 1962 cannot be said as proceeding which is part of refund application under section 27. Submission that authorization can be implied even for further proceedings under section 28 for recovery of wrong refund cannot be accepted. Notice issued on clearance agent, not good enough notice for the purpose of taking it as a notice on importer.

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by CESTAT regarding recovery of excess refund.
2. Refund claim for duty paid on imported weaving machines.
3. Proceedings initiated under Section 28 of the Customs Act for recovery of wrongly refunded amount.
4. Applicability of limitation period for reclaiming the refund.
5. Argument of unjust enrichment by the Revenue.
6. Acceptance of plea of limitation by the Appellate Commissioner.
7. Tribunal's decision on the validity of notice served on the importer's agent.
8. Interpretation of the authorisation letter issued to the Customs agent.
9. Distinction between short levy and erroneous refund cases.
10. Application of the Supreme Court judgment in Trivandrum Rubber Works case.
11. Undertaking given by the importer regarding unjust enrichment.
12. Dismissal of the appeal and reservation of liberty to enforce the undertaking independently.

Analysis:

1. The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Customs against a CESTAT order regarding the recovery of an excess refund amount. The Tribunal held that the Department's attempt to recover the amount was barred by the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The refund claim in question pertained to duty paid on imported weaving machines by the importer, totaling Rs. 16,88,555/- as per the bill of entry dated 31-3-1999.

3. The Assessing Officer, after allowing the refund, sought to reclaim the amount under Section 28 of the Customs Act, initiating proceedings by serving a notice on the Custom House Agent who handled the refund application.

4. The issue of the limitation period arose when the importer raised a plea that the notice received on 3-4-2000 was time-barred, thus challenging the Revenue's entitlement to reclaim the amount.

5. The Revenue contended that the refund resulted in unjust enrichment, justifying the recovery proceedings under Section 28.

6. The Appellate Commissioner upheld the reopening of proceedings under Section 28, stating that the notice served on the agent was sufficient and not time-barred.

7. However, the Tribunal accepted the importer's argument that the notice served on the agent was not a valid notice on the importer, leading to the appeal being allowed and the order of assessment for recovery being set aside.

8. The interpretation of the authorisation letter issued to the Customs agent played a crucial role, with the Tribunal rejecting the argument that the authorisation extended to proceedings under Section 28.

9. The distinction between cases of short levy and erroneous refund was debated, with the Tribunal ultimately applying the Supreme Court judgment in Trivandrum Rubber Works case to support its decision.

10. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of the Supreme Court's ruling and rejecting the Revenue's arguments regarding the notice served on the importer's agent.

11. The issue of unjust enrichment was addressed concerning an undertaking given by the importer, clarifying that it was an independent undertaking related to the refund and could be enforced separately from the Act's provisions.

12. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with authorities reserved the liberty to enforce the undertaking independently in accordance with the given clarification.

← Previous Next →