2019 (2) TMI 1387 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/20007-CUS dated 14.09.2007 - Rejection on the sole ground that the appellant had not attached the original Bill of Entry along with their refund claims - Held that - There are no merits in the above contention in the absence of any provision shown by the Revenue that such original copy of Bill of Entry was required. Further the facts are also undisputed that such copy was produced by the assessee while filing the refund claims, which stands mis-placed by the Revenue. In such a scenario the assessee cannot be expected to produce the original Bill of Entry - appeal of Revenue rejected. Entitlement to Interest - case of appellant is that inasmuch as the refund claims were delayed on account of the lapse on the part of the Revenue, they are admittedly entitled to interest - Held that - The issue before the original adjudicating authority was claim of refund of SAD which stands denied by him. As such there was no occasion for the original adjudicating authority to deal with interest aspect. Further Commissioner(Appeals) though had allowed the refund claims, but rejected the interest amount by one line observations reproduced above. There was no discussion or observations by Commissioner(Appeals) as regards interest claimed by the assessee. As such we are of the view that the matter should be remanded to original adjudicating authority for deciding the appellant s claim of interest. Application on remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported items; Requirement of original Bill of Entry for refund claims; Entitlement to interest on delayed refund.

Refund of SAD:
The appellant imported items and cleared them by paying duties, including SAD, seeking a refund as per Notification No.102/20007-CUS. The Revenue rejected the refund claims for not attaching the original Bill of Entry, despite the appellant claiming to have initially submitted it. The Commissioner(Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating no requirement for the original Bill of Entry in the Notification. Both sides appealed.

Original Bill of Entry Requirement:
The Revenue's appeal contended that the original Bill of Entry was necessary, but the Tribunal found no merit as the copy was submitted initially and misplaced by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals)' decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Refund:
The appellant sought interest on delayed refunds, citing precedents like Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. Union of India and Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Riso India Pvt.ltd. The Tribunal noted that the original adjudicating authority did not address the interest aspect, and the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the interest claim without discussion. The matter was remanded to the original authority to decide on interest liability based on relevant case law and the date of the original refund claim filing, as per section 27A of the Customs Act.

This judgment clarifies the requirements for refund claims, the necessity of original documentation, and the entitlement to interest on delayed refunds, providing a detailed analysis of each issue and citing relevant legal precedents to support the decisions made.