2014 (3) TMI 353 - AT - Customs

Interest on delayed payments - Refund claim sanctioned by Tribunal in previous order - However Refund was not granted due to dispute - Held that - refund become due to the appellant vide order dated 12-3-2001 passed by this Tribunal and the refund was also granted to the appellant vide order dated 29-9-2008 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs. However, payment of the refund was not made due to dispute in this regard raised by the department and the same was settled against the Revenue and in favour of the appellant vide order dated 16-11-2010 and, thereafter, the refund was paid to the appellant on 9-6-2011. Therefore, the amount deposited by the appellant under protest, which was not challenged, is liable to be returned to the appellant along with interest w.e.f. 29-9-2008. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled for the benefit of interest prescribed under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 for the period 29-9-2008 to 9-6-2011 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
Refund of redemption fine and penalty, application of principle of unjust enrichment, entitlement to interest on refunded amounts, interpretation of Section 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962, compliance with Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX.

Analysis:

Refund of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The case involves the appellant, M/s. Ratan Udyog, Kolkata, who initially filed incorrect shipping bills but later corrected the declaration for drawback. After a series of adjudications and appeals, the appellant was allowed to redeem the goods upon payment of a fine and penalty. Subsequently, various orders were passed regarding the refund of the fine and penalty. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and reduced the penalty. The Asstt. Commissioner allowed the refund, which was challenged by the department. The lower appellate authority initially allowed the department's appeal, leading to further appeals and counter-appeals. The final issue before the Tribunal was the appellant's entitlement to the refund of the fine and penalty.

Application of Principle of Unjust Enrichment:
The department contended that the principle of unjust enrichment should apply to the refund granted by the Asstt. Commissioner. However, the Tribunal, in a previous order, had held that the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply to redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal reiterated this stance in the current case and set aside the lower appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable in this context.

Entitlement to Interest on Refunded Amounts:
The appellant argued for the entitlement to interest on the refunded amounts under Section 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions and the High Court's ruling in Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India to support their claim for interest on the pre-deposit made prior to the confirmation of the demand. The appellant also referenced Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX, which emphasized the timely refund of pre-deposits and the liability for interest in case of delays.

Interpretation of Section 129EE and Compliance with Circular:
Section 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962, allows for interest on delayed refunds of amounts deposited under the proviso to Section 129E. The appellant's argument centered on the delay between the order for refund and the actual payment, making them eligible for interest. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, citing the specific dates of orders and payments. The Tribunal also directed the department to pay the interest due to the appellant for the specified period, aligning with the provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to the refund of the redemption fine and penalty, rejected the application of the principle of unjust enrichment, and affirmed the appellant's entitlement to interest on the refunded amounts as per the provisions of Section 129EE and relevant legal precedents and circulars.

← Previous Next →