2010 (1) TMI 463 - AT - Customs

Refund - Dispute relates to the adjustment of amount towards customs duty said to be due from the respondent in pursuance of the order passed on 18-6-97 by Mumbai Customs authorities. Held that - in view of High court order, it was inappropriate for Mumbai authorities to adjust sanctioned refund. Impugned order directing refund by cheque, upheld.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appropriation of refund amount against customs duty demand.
2. Compliance with the High Court directions regarding the pending dues.
3. Validity of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Analysis:
1. Appropriation of refund amount against customs duty demand:
The appeal by the Department contested the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the appropriation of a refund of Rs. one lakh towards a customs duty demand of Rs. 1,22,131. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appropriation was done without notice to the party, hindering their ability to present their case. The Commissioner noted that the end-use certificate was issued to the Customs authorities before the demand order was made, indicating improper recovery grounds. The Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner to refund the amount with interest, emphasizing the need for proper investigation before appropriation.

2. Compliance with the High Court directions regarding pending dues:
The High Court had issued directions on 12-11-2007 regarding pending dues and required certain actions to be taken by the Department. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not approve the adjustment of the refunded amount against the pending dues, emphasizing the need for compliance with the High Court's directions. The failure to follow the High Court's directions and take appropriate action was highlighted, indicating a lack of compliance by the Department.

3. Validity of the Commissioner (Appeals) order:
The Tribunal found no valid reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal by the Department. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the High Court's directions and conducting proper investigations before appropriating refund amounts against pending dues. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to refund the amount with interest was upheld, indicating a fair and just decision based on the facts presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to refund the amount to the party and emphasized the need for proper investigation before appropriating refund amounts against pending dues. Compliance with the High Court directions was deemed essential, and the appeal by the Department was rejected due to the lack of valid reasons to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order.