2017 (1) TMI 693 - AT - Customs

Refund - classification for imported vessel - scope of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - it would appear that the officer concerned has decided on the claim, which, though not to the satisfaction of the applicant, is nevertheless an order within the scope of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, statutory provisions of Customs Act, 1962 for further proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals) is liable to be activated. It would, in the circumstances, be inappropriate for us to decide upon, or even render any observation on, adequacy of compliance with our orders - matter on remand - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Implementation of Tribunal's order for refund of duty paid during proceedings; Compliance with Tribunal's order; Activation of statutory provisions for further proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals); Opportunity for applicant to seek remedy under Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962; Time elapsed till disposal of application not to be counted for appeal period computation.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application filed by M/s. Great Offshore Ltd. for the implementation of a Tribunal order which decided upon the classification for an imported vessel, entitling the applicant to a refund of duty paid during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted the failure to comply with the order and directed the competent authority to dispose of the refund claim within a specified period. An extension was granted due to pending appeals. Eventually, the refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, leading to the applicant's dissatisfaction.

The Tribunal observed that the rejection constituted an order within the scope of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, activating statutory provisions for further proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the Tribunal declined to comment on the adequacy of compliance with its orders. The applicant, believing in the Tribunal's intervention for obtaining the refund, was directed that the time elapsed till the disposal of the application would not be considered for computing the period to appeal against the rejection of the refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application for the implementation of its order as infructuous, providing clarity on the applicant's right to seek remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment emphasized the statutory provisions governing further proceedings and the applicant's entitlement to pursue available remedies despite the rejection of the refund claim.