9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter, they filed refund claim for the excess duty paid. The Assistant Collector (Refunds) rejected their refund claim which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). On appeal, the Tribunal remanded the appeal to the Collector (Appeals), for reconsideration of his decision. In the de novo proceedings, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), vide his order No. M/Cus. 985/1994 dated 30-8-1994 decided that the correct classification of the impugned goods was CTH 84.10 and ordered consequential relief. 2. The appellants filed another refund claim before the Assistant Commissioner which was rejected on 28-9-95. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), he directed that the Order-in-Appeal No. M. Cus. 985/94 dated 30-8-1994 allowing the refund be im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 143 (Tri.-LB)] wherein the Tribunal had ordered grant of interest for the delay in making refund in excess of three months of the order of the Tribunal allowing the party s appeal. 6. We have studied the case records and the submissions. We are not in a position to follow the decisions cited by the Ld. Counsel as they had been passed by the High Courts in exercise of their equitable jurisdiction and not in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The case law cited by the ld. SDR does not disclose if the Tribunal order referred in it had been passed against an order denying a refund claim. Therefore we are not able to rely on this decision as well. 7. The provisions relating to grant of interest were introduced by Section 55 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill the date of refund of such duty. 8. In this case, the appellants had filed claim for refund initially in 1984 which had been rejected. Their appeal against the order of rejection was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30-8-1994. Their claim was pending on the date of enactment of Section 27A. As per Explanation to Section 27A, where an order of refund is passed by any appellate authority against an order of the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner that order shall be deemed to be an order passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 27. This Explanation reads as under : Explanation. Where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal [National Tax Tribunal] or any court against an order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This order has to be deemed as the order passed under Section 27(2) of the Act pursuant to which the appellants got refund on 27-7-99. Once a refund claim is filed, there is no need to file further claim following a subsequent decision in appeal if an appeal is filed. The claim filed has to be scrutinized on merits, limitation and from the unjust enrichment angle when the claim is received. Further, the order in appeal which finally settles the entitlement to the claim becomes the order contemplated under Section 27(2), if the claim is disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner. 10. We find that the appellant is entitled to interest as per Section 27A for the delay with reference to their initial application for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
