9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 603 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - appellants paid the export cess by mistake and Revenue accepted the same, without any objection - Held that - It seems to be a case of payment of export cess under a mistake. Neither the appellant was aware of the exemption of the same or the Revenue adviced him not to pay the cess. The decision of Aman Medical Products Ltd. vs. CC, Delhi (2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein held that when there is no list between the assessee and the Revenue, non-filing of any appeal against the assessment order cannot act fatal to the assessee s claim of refund. By applying the ratio of the above decision to the facts of the present case, there was no list between the appellant and the Revenue and it was a simple case of payment of export cess on a mistaken belief, which was also not rectified by the Revenue. Revenue s appeal is accordingly rejected.
Issues:
1. Disposal of appeals arising from the same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding refund claims. 2. Non-representation of the appellant leading to dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. Export cess exemption and refund claim rejection based on limitation. 4. Dispute over the filing of refund claim in accordance with legal precedents. 5. Payment of export cess under a mistake and the applicability of the decision in Aman Medical Products Ltd. vs. CC, Delhi. Issue 1: The judgment pertains to the disposal of appeals arising from the same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding refund claims. The Commissioner allowed the assessee's part refund claim of Rs. 7,03,188/- but rejected the balance refund claim of Rs. 17,50,671/- on the grounds of limitation. Both parties appealed against the respective parts of the impugned order. Issue 2: The appellant was not represented during several instances of the appeal proceedings, leading to concerns about their interest in pursuing the appeal. Despite multiple adjournments in the interest of justice and providing the appellant with the last chance, the appellant remained unrepresented. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Issue 3: Regarding the Revenue's appeal, it was noted that the assessee was exporting honey and paying export cess, which was later found to be exempted and not payable under a specific notification. The refund claim was rejected by the original Adjudicating Authority but partially allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) within the period of limitation. Issue 4: The Revenue's grievance centered around the challenge to shipping bills and the direct filing of the refund claim, citing a legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The argument was that the filing was not in accordance with the law as established in a specific case law. Issue 5: The judgment analyzed the situation where the export cess was paid under a mistake, and the Revenue accepted it without objection. Citing a decision by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was concluded that in the absence of a dispute between the assessee and the Revenue, the non-filing of an appeal against the assessment order did not invalidate the claim of refund. The Tribunal found no fault in the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal accordingly. In conclusion, both appeals were disposed of as per the detailed analysis provided for each issue, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and the dismissal of the appellant's appeal due to non-prosecution.
|
