2025 (1) TMI 856 - AT - Customs

Refund claims for the Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid by the respondents - non-uploading of a relevant notification in the EDI system - HELD THAT - The respondent has stated that the collection of the duty without the authority of law attracting Art 265 of the Constitution and according the refund of the duty ought to have been paid to them accepting that the said payment and collection was under a mistake. It is true that if no tax can be collected except by authority of law, the same logic would prevail for retention of amounts collected without the authority of law. However, that amount has to be claimed as provided for under the Act. Article 13(1)(a) of the Constitution defines law to include any Ordinance, Order, Bye-law, Rule, Regulation, Notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law . As stated in Mafatlal Industries 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT , Article 265 does not itself lay down any criteria for testing the validity of a statute, when it speaks of law , it refers to a valid law but the validity has to be determined with reference to other provisions of the Constitution. Considering the loss of time caused due to the Registry s lapse in not furnishing of our order dated 19.09.2024 to the rival parties, preventing them from responding effectively to the issues raised therein and after hearing the party afresh, the matter can be effectively resolved by remanding the matter to the Original Authority as decided in the impugned order, leaving all issues raised by the parties to this appeal and cross-appeal open. Conclusion - Refund claims are not maintainable without challenging the original assessment orders. Procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice are paramount. The remand order for reconsideration of refund claims upheld. Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai primarily revolves around the following core legal questions:

Whether the refund claims for the Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid by the respondents, due to the alleged non-uploading of a relevant notification in the EDI system, are maintainable without challenging the original assessment orders?
Whether the remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the lower authority to reconsider the refund claims, adhering to the principles of natural justice, was appropriate?
Whether the respondents can claim discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution due to the alleged differential treatment in refund claims compared to other importers?
Whether the Tribunal has the authority to recall its own orders for further clarification and rehearing?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of Refund Claims Without Challenging Assessment Orders

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The core legal framework involves Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which pertains to the appeal process against assessment orders. The precedent set in ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV, emphasizes that refund applications are not maintainable unless the assessment order is modified in accordance with law.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were not challenged by the respondents, which renders the refund claims unsustainable as per the established legal framework.
Key Evidence and Findings: The respondents did not lodge a protest at the time of assessment, nor did they appeal against the assessment orders, which were finalized.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principle that without challenging the assessment, the refund claims cannot be entertained.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the duty was collected without authority due to an EDI system error, but the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of challenging the assessment itself.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the refund claims are not maintainable without a challenge to the assessment orders.

Issue 2: Appropriateness of the Remand Order

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case. The Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the matter for reconsideration on these grounds.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal upheld the remand order, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and adherence to natural justice principles.
Key Evidence and Findings: The initial rejection of refund claims was done without a hearing, which was a procedural lapse.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal agreed that procedural fairness was not observed, justifying the remand for a de novo adjudication.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The department argued that the remand was unnecessary, but the Tribunal prioritized procedural fairness.
Conclusions: The remand was upheld to ensure compliance with natural justice principles.

Issue 3: Claim of Discrimination Under Article 14

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality before the law. However, it does not apply to illegal or improper actions.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that equality cannot be claimed in instances of illegality, referencing the precedent in State of A.P. Vs S.B.P.V. Chalapathi Rao and Others.
Key Evidence and Findings: The respondents pointed to other importers receiving refunds, but the Tribunal focused on the legality of the respondents' own claims.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the respondents' claims must be evaluated on their own legal merits.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents' argument of discrimination was dismissed as it was based on potentially improper refunds to others.
Conclusions: The Tribunal rejected the claim of discrimination under Article 14.

Issue 4: Authority to Recall Orders for Rehearing

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal's authority to recall orders is supported by the doctrine of prejudice, as seen in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal justified the recall of its order to prevent prejudice and ensure comprehensive consideration of the facts and law.
Key Evidence and Findings: The recall was necessitated by overlooked facts and legal positions.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal exercised its power to recall to safeguard the rights of the parties involved.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents contested the recall, citing a lack of communication, but the Tribunal emphasized the need for a fair and thorough adjudication.
Conclusions: The Tribunal affirmed its authority to recall orders for rehearing to ensure justice.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "No equality can be claimed in illegality as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Courts judgment in State of A.P. Vs S.B.P.V. Chalapathi Rao and Others."
Core Principles Established: Refund claims are not maintainable without challenging the original assessment orders. Procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice are paramount. Equality cannot be claimed in instances of illegality.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal upheld the remand order for reconsideration of refund claims, dismissed the claim of discrimination under Article 14, and affirmed its authority to recall orders for rehearing.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of following legal procedures, ensuring fairness, and the Tribunal's commitment to rectifying errors to uphold justice.

← Previous Next →