2023 (4) TMI 1203 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - refund of SAD - alleged discrepancies noticed in the refund claim based whereupon the refund claim was rejected by this Tribunal - opportunity of hearing to be provided - doctrine of merger of orders - HELD THAT - The Deficiency Memo was issued at the time of scrutiny of said refund claim on 09.04.2018 itself. But the appellants never replied to the said Deficiency Memo despite a subsequent Memo dated 03.07.2018 nor even after the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2018 which proposed the rejection of refund claim for it to be incomplete and barred by time. Appellant even failed to appear before the respective Original Adjudicating Authorities when opportunities of personal hearings were given to them. The Original Adjudicating Authorities, accordingly, decided the matter ex-parte vide respective Orders-in-Original rejecting the refund claim not only for it to be barred by time but also for it to be incomplete. Though ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed only one aspect of rejecting the claims i.e. time bar aspect. But it is observed that the orders of Original Authorities have been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) resulting into merger of these orders. The perusal of Orders-in-Original is clear that those were passed ex-parte. The appellants, despite the opportunities given, never responded to Deficiency Memo nor to Show Cause Notice nor even to the notices of personal hearing. Resultantly, the deficiencies already observed at scrutiny level, continued and the refund claims were rejected on both the aspects i.e. for being incomplete and for being barred by time. Hence, the findings for refund claim to be incomplete stand confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) also. The discrepancies in the refund claim were noticed by the Deficiency Memo dated 09.04.2018 itself. The said Memo has been mentioned in the Orders-in-Original which got merged with the Orders-in-Appeal as have been challenged before this Tribunal. It is the same Deficiency Memo which has been mentioned in the impugned Final Order dated 21.08.2021. Hence, there was no need of serving another notice to the appellants prior rejecting their appeals for want of removal of those deficiencies. Since at the stage of fresh hearing also nothing new has been brought to this Tribunal, there is no reason to differ from the findings in the Final Order. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the remand of three appeals by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi, directing a fresh decision on refund claims after addressing alleged discrepancies.

Details of the judgment:

1. Remand of Appeals:
The present order disposes of three appeals remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, directing the Tribunal to reexamine the refund claims after providing the appellants with a reasonable opportunity to address the discrepancies noted in the claims.

2. Submissions by Appellant and Department:
Advocates for the appellant reiterated arguments regarding the applicability of certain notifications and emphasized that there were no discrepancies in the refund claim. The Departmental Representative, however, contended that the claim was incomplete and time-barred, as highlighted in the initial scrutiny and subsequent proceedings.

3. Observations on Refund Claim:
The importer-appellant filed a refund claim for Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) based on specific notifications. The Tribunal rejected three claims as incomplete due to discrepancies that were not rectified by the appellants, as noted during the initial scrutiny.

4. Failure to Address Deficiencies:
Despite receiving a Deficiency Memo and subsequent notices, the appellants failed to respond or provide necessary documents. The Original Adjudicating Authorities rejected the claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the incomplete nature of the claim.

5. Confirmation of Incompleteness:
The Tribunal's final order confirmed the incompleteness of the refund claim, as the appellants did not address the deficiencies even during the remand process. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on the incomplete nature of the claim.

6. Lack of Evidence of Completeness:
The appellants did not produce any new documents during the remand to demonstrate the completeness of the claim or challenge the Deficiency Memo issued earlier. The Tribunal maintained the findings of the final order due to the lack of new evidence.

7. Final Decision:
As no new information was presented during the remand process, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the final order, rejecting the appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) orders. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 27.04.2023.