2012 (12) TMI 836 - HC - Customs

Outstanding refund claim - assessee seeking refund the amounts due to them with interest - Held that - As decided in SHREE SIMANDAR ENTERPRISES case 2012 (9) TMI 538 - KERALA HIGH COURT which arose from 2012 (8) TMI 176 - KERALA HIGH COURT the event of the petitioners producing documents pertaining to the identity of the person to whom refund is to be made along with proof of address and also bank account number and executing an indemnity bond undertaking to keep the department indemnified against future claims by someone else who might produce the original of the duty paid challan, the respondent will refund the amount payable to the petitioners. Also to pay interest at 6% per annum was also vacated - directions for refund of excess fine and penalty without interest.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of redemption fine and penalty not paid to petitioners by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin.
2. Non-payment of refund due to absence of original bill of entry and duty paid challan.
3. Legal requirements for refund process as per court directions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners imported used photocopiers through Cochin Port, leading to confiscation of goods with an option to redeem them by paying a redemption fine and penalty. Dissatisfied with the adjudicating authority's decision, the petitioners appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin, who reduced the fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the imported goods' value. However, the petitioners were yet to receive the refunds of Rs.3,67,178/- and Rs.3,71,739/- as ordered by the appellate authority. Consequently, the petitioners sought a court order directing the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin to refund the amounts owed to them along with interest from the date of the appellate order.

2. In response, the respondent argued that the refund was withheld due to the petitioners' failure to produce the original bill of entry and duty paid challan. This non-compliance with document submission requirements was cited as the reason for the delay in processing the refund. The court took note of this contention in evaluating the case.

3. During the hearing, the court considered the submissions of the learned senior counsels representing the Central Board of Excise and Customs, who referenced a Division Bench decision and a previous judgment related to the refund process. The court directed the petitioners to provide necessary documents proving the identity of the refund recipient, address details, and bank account information. Additionally, an indemnity bond was to be executed by the petitioners to indemnify the department against potential future claims related to the duty paid challan. Following these directives, the respondent was instructed to examine the refund application and process it within a month of receiving the specified documents. The court's decision was guided by the precedent set by the Division Bench regarding refund of excess fine and penalty without interest in similar circumstances, thereby concluding the case with clear instructions for the refund process.