2015 (9) TMI 922 - HC - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Liability to pay Cess on the export of processed marine products - Held that - neither any adverse order has been passed nor any proceeding is pending against the petitioner and the representation of the petitioner alone is pending for consideration with the 3rd respondent - Court directs the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.08.2004 with regard to levy of Cess in the light of the judgements of the Division Benches of this court referred 2015 (3) TMI 1036 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the petitioner including personal hearing. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner company is directed to place all their submissions including copies of the orders passed by the Division Benches of this court which shall be taken into consideration by the 3rd respondent while passing the orders on the representation of the petitioner - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to collection of Cess on export of marine products under Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 and refund of collected amount.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company engaged in exporting processed marine products, challenged the collection of Cess on marine products like prawns, shrimps, and others under the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940. The petitioner argued that these processed marine products are not covered for Cess payment and should not be subjected to double taxation. They contended that these products are not considered "Fish" under the Act, making them exempt from Cess payment. The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking relief from the collection of Cess and refund of the amount collected between July 2004 to June 2005.

The court considered the petitioner's grievances and noted that a representation challenging the Cess payment had been made to the authorities earlier. The court also highlighted previous judgments, including one where it was held that prawns and shrimps are not included in the definition of "Fish" under the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940. Based on these precedents, the petitioner sought a similar decision in their case.

The standing counsel for the respondents argued that no adverse orders or pending proceedings existed against the petitioner, and the representation made by the petitioner was under consideration. The court directed the concerned authority to review the petitioner's representation in light of the previous judgments and provide a decision within six weeks. The petitioner was instructed to submit all relevant documents for consideration during this review process. Regarding the refund of Cess collected between July 2004 to June 2005, the petitioner was given the option to pursue legal remedies based on the outcome of the representation review.

Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petitions with the above directions, emphasizing that no costs were to be incurred. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as a result of the judgment.