2015 (3) TMI 1036 - HC - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Duty under protest - similar issue has been considered in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs Edhayam Frozen Foods (2008 (7) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT MADRAS), and has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether prawns/shrimps are liable for cess under the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940.
2. Validity of refund claim without payment of duty under protest.
3. Rejection of refund claim due to non-production of original documents.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in exporting marine products like prawns/shrimps, challenged the cess collection by the Revenue, claiming prawns/shrimps are not liable for cess. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating prawns/shrimps are not fish and are exempt from cess. The appellant filed a refund claim, rejected for non-production of original documents. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that cess was not applicable to prawns/shrimps under the Act. The High Court considered a similar case where prawns/shrimps were held not to be included in the definition of fish under the Act. The Court cited precedents from various High Courts supporting the distinction between fish and prawns/shrimps, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

2. The Court addressed the issue of whether the refund claim could be rejected for not paying duty under protest and for non-production of original documents. The Court noted that the substantial questions of law regarding these issues were academic and not dealt with, focusing on the main issue of the interpretation of the Act. The Court emphasized the distinction between fish and prawns/shrimps based on biological and commercial understanding, supporting the assessee's claim that prawns/shrimps are not covered under the Act. The Court referred to judgments from different High Courts and held that prawns/shrimps are not included in the definition of fish under the Act, thereby upholding the assessee's position.

3. The Court examined the rejection of the refund claim due to non-production of original documents, specifically the shipping bills and cess paid challans. The Court highlighted a similar case where the issue of whether prawns/shrimps are included in the definition of fish under the Act was addressed. The Court cited various judgments supporting the distinction between fish and prawns/shrimps, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that prawns/shrimps are not covered under the Act and, therefore, the refund claim rejection based on non-production of original documents was not valid.