1999 (12) TMI 604 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalty based on availing excess duty drawback on export through Calcutta Port. Direction to deposit the amount again in Calcutta Commissionerate and claim refund from Jaipur Commissionerate.

Confirmation of Duty Demand and Imposition of Penalty:
The Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,10,782 and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the appellants for availing excess duty drawback on exports through Calcutta Port. The appellants had initially deposited the excess amount and rebate claimed by them, as directed by the DRI, Jaipur, before the adjudication proceedings began. The Commissioner acknowledged the deposit made by the appellants but directed them to deposit the same amount again in Calcutta Commissionerate and claim a refund from Jaipur Commissionerate due to potential accounting issues in adjusting the deposited amount. The Commissioner cited Rule 16 of Drawback Rules '96 and Section 75 of the C.A. '62 to confirm the demand. The appellants did not contest the duty demand or penalty but challenged the direction to make a second payment.

Direction to Deposit Amount Again and Claim Refund:
The appellants, represented by their advocate, argued against the direction to deposit the amount again in Calcutta Commissionerate and claim a refund from Jaipur Commissionerate. They contended that as they had already deposited the amount during the investigation by DRI, Jaipur, making a second payment would result in double payment. The advocate highlighted that the Department is unified across India, making the direction unnecessary. On the other hand, the Revenue representative acknowledged that the duty had already been deposited by the appellants but raised concerns about administrative challenges in transferring the amount between Commissionerates. The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellants were not obligated to make a second payment as the duty confirmed had already been deposited. The Tribunal emphasized that the internal adjustment between the two Commissionerates should not burden the appellants with a duplicate payment. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order confirming the duty demand and penalty imposition, while ruling that the appellants were not legally required to pay the confirmed amount again in Calcutta.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata highlights the issues surrounding the confirmation of duty demand, imposition of penalty, and the contentious direction to deposit the amount again in Calcutta Commissionerate. The Tribunal's decision provides clarity on the legal obligations of the appellants and the administrative considerations in such cases, ensuring a fair and just outcome in the matter.