9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 159 - AT - CustomsRejection of refund claim - plausible reason for the department to file the appeal since the refund application had been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner or not - HELD THAT - What is more important to notice is that the appeal was filed by the department on 16.01.2017, much after the order was passed by the Delhi High Court on 08.11.2016 in the Writ Petition filed by Intex against the said order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The reliefs that had been claimed by Intex in the Writ Petition were to declare the order dated 22.09.2016 as null and void and to quash it as it was in violation of the law declared by the Supreme Court in M/S SRF LTD., M/S ITC LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT AND GENERAL) , NEW DELHI 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT . A further relief that was claimed by Intex was to direct the department to process the application for refund in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court in SRF. When the High Court had examined the correctness of the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the Writ Petition filed by Intex, the department could not have filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) to assail the same order dated 29.11.2016 before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said order, by necessary implication, stood set aside by the Delhi High Court. Further, the directions issued by the High Court had also been duly complied with by the Assistant Commissioner in the fresh order dated 29.11.2016 and payment had also been paid to Intex. The only course open to the department was to have challenged the order passed by the Delhi High Court on 08.11.2016 before the Supreme Court, which the department did by filing a Special Leave Petition in February 2017, but the Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 07.07.2017. Thus, when the appeal was filed by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) against an order the correctness of which stood decided against the department by the Delhi High Court, the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 26.06.2019 would be without jurisdiction. This appeal has been filed by the department to assail the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The facts stated above would leave no manner of doubt that the department had not only unnecessarily filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), but this appeal has also been unnecessarily filed by the department before the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the department could have filed an appeal against the order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund application. 2. The validity of the appeal filed by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 16.01.2017 after the Delhi High Court's order on 08.11.2016. 3. Compliance with the Delhi High Court's direction for refund and interest payment. 4. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the order dated 22.09.2016. Summary: Issue 1: Appeal Against the Assistant Commissioner's Order The department filed an appeal against the order dated 22.09.2016, where the Assistant Commissioner had rejected the refund application of Intex Technologies under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was filed despite the Assistant Commissioner's order being in favor of the department, as it had rejected the refund claim. Issue 2: Validity of the Appeal Post-Delhi High Court Order The department's appeal was filed on 16.01.2017, after the Delhi High Court had already directed on 08.11.2016 that the refund claim be processed and the appropriate refund amount with interest be paid to Intex within three weeks. The Assistant Commissioner complied with this order on 29.11.2016, and the refund amount with interest was paid to Intex. The department also filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court's order, which was dismissed on 07.07.2017. Issue 3: Compliance with High Court's Direction The High Court's order dated 08.11.2016 mandated the Assistant Commissioner to process and pay the refund claim with interest. The Assistant Commissioner complied and sanctioned the refund of Rs. 147,16,78,904/- with interest of Rs. 50,80,316/-. Intex later filed for rectification of the interest amount, which was also sanctioned, and the balance interest amount of Rs. 3,72,55,652/- was paid. Issue 4: Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 22.09.2016 and directed a fresh order to be passed. However, the Tribunal found that the appeal by the department was unnecessary and without jurisdiction since the High Court had already decided the matter, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the department's Special Leave Petition. The Tribunal concluded that the department's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the Tribunal was without merit. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the department, stating that the appeal was unnecessary and without jurisdiction, given the High Court's prior ruling and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. The Cross Application filed by Intex was also disposed of.
|
