2022 (8) TMI 1008 - AT - Customs

Refund of amount deposited during investigation - amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal or not - contention of the appellant that the amount deposited voluntarily during investigation should be treated as amount towards the pre-deposit was rejected for the reason that it was not an amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal - HELD THAT - The appellant had not deposited the amount towards the pre-deposit and in any view of the matter the Tribunal had even after setting aside the order appealed against remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication with a direction to the parties to maintain status quo. The appellant was bound by this order of status quo passed by the Tribunal and could not have asked for the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant voluntary during investigation, which amount had been confirmed and appropriated by the order impugned before the Tribunal in the earlier round of proceedings. Appeal dismissed.

Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claim, jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, pre-deposit amount, maintain status quo, dismissal of appeal.

Analysis:
1. Appeal against rejection of refund claim: The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 3,00,82,889/- by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant contended that the amount voluntarily deposited during the investigation should be treated as a pre-deposit and refunded since the appeal filed by the appellant was successful in setting aside the demand. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected this contention, stating that the amount was not deposited at the time of filing the appeal. The Tribunal had remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the parties to maintain status quo until the issue was resolved. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim in the order dated June 17, 2019.

2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs: The Tribunal had earlier addressed the issue of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to issue the show cause notice. The Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue after the Supreme Court decision in another case. The Tribunal directed that the status quo be maintained until a final decision was reached. The matter was not adjudicated upon by the Assistant Commissioner after the remand.

3. Pre-deposit amount and maintain status quo: The appellant had not deposited the amount as a pre-deposit, and the Tribunal had specifically directed the parties to maintain status quo. The appellant's request for a refund of the voluntarily deposited amount was rejected since it had been confirmed and appropriated by the previous order. The Tribunal's order to maintain status quo bound the appellant, preventing them from seeking a refund.

4. Dismissal of appeal: The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and submissions, found no merit in the appeal. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed to be free from any infirmity that would warrant interference by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the importance of following its directions to maintain status quo and denying the appellant's request for a refund of the amount deposited voluntarily during the investigation. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the lack of merit in challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

← Previous Next →