2017 (7) TMI 233 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - duty paid under protest - Held that - In the absence of any documentary evidence to show that they were infact contesting the matter of leviability of cess on the prawns and shrimps, we find that both the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the claim of the appellants for the refund of the amounts of cess paid - The lower authorities were correct in rejecting the claim on the limitation as it is on the record that appellant had paid the amount in 2001 and 2002 and filed refund claims on 12.09.2005 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of agricultural produce cess on exported shrimps, eligibility for refund, applicability of Customs Act provisions, legality of cess collection, rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 20 & 21/2007 challenging the collection of agricultural produce cess on exported Frozen Shrimps under the DEPB Scheme. The appellants sought a refund of the cess paid, arguing that it was not leviable based on a previous Tribunal decision. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing limitation and non-protest of payment. The Ld. Consultant contended that the cess was collected without authority of law and should be refunded as per Article 265 of the Constitution, distinguishing it from customs duty under the Customs Act, 1962.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants had paid the cess without protest during June 2001 to October 2001 and June 2002. The Ld. Consultant's argument that the cess should be considered a deposit was dismissed as the appellants did not contest the cess's leviability at the time of payment. The Tribunal found no evidence of the appellants challenging the cess collection, leading to the rejection of the refund claim on grounds of limitation and non-protest of payment. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the absence of contestation by the appellants during the relevant period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was legal and correct, devoid of any flaws. The appeals were consequently rejected, affirming the lower authorities' decision to dismiss the refund claim. The judgment highlights the importance of contesting tax payments at the time of collection to establish grounds for refund, especially in cases where the legality of the tax is later challenged.