9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1323 - HC - CustomsMonetary amount involved in the appeal - Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The tax effect involved in these eight appeals is only ₹ 3,09,998/- - In view of the order of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd., 2015 (8) TMI 474 - SUPREME COURT , where the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the appeal due to low tax effect leaving the question of law open - the present appeals are also dismissed.
Issues:
- Challenge to CESTAT Order under Customs Act, 1962 - Claim of interest on delayed refunds - Acceptance of partial interest payment by Assistant Commissioner Analysis: 1. Challenge to CESTAT Order under Customs Act, 1962: The appeal was filed under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the CESTAT Order No.A/61265 of 2017 dated 13.07.2017. The issue involved in multiple appeals was deemed identical. The facts were extracted from one specific appeal, CUSAP No. 8 of 2018, for reference. 2. Claim of interest on delayed refunds: The respondent had claimed interest amounting to ? 774,981 on delayed refunds across various refund file numbers. The interest was calculated at a rate of 15% after deducting 90 days from the total number of days. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs accepted the interest payable against delayed refunds only to the extent of ? 3,09,988, rejecting the remaining balance claim of ? 4,64,983. 3. Acceptance of partial interest payment by Assistant Commissioner: The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the interest payable on delayed refunds after deducting 90 days, but only up to ? 3,09,988. The details of the interest calculation and the specific refund file numbers were provided in the judgment. The total interest amount claimed by the respondent was ? 774,981, out of which a partial amount was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals due to the low tax effect involved, citing a precedent where the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal without delving into the merits due to a similar reason. The dismissal of the appeals did not signify affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the revenue was left open for future adjudication in a suitable case.
|
