9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assigned by the Original Authority. The Appellate Authority was also of the view that the refund is sanctioned well within the time of three months from the date of receipt of last document from the importer and therefore, question of awarding interest will not arise - the Tribunal has not at all a recorded finding indicating that the order passed by the original authority as well as the Appellate Authority suffers from perversity. The Tribunal has not even discussed the facts of the present case on hand. What emerges from the order passed by the Tribunal is that it has proceeded to order for payment of interest on the ground that the application is not decided within a period of three months. The contention of the respondent-importer that even if the application was defective, the same at the most may amount irregularity and hence, the Department cannot escape the liability of paying interest in terms of Section 27-A of the Act, 1962 is too far stretched and we are unable to accede to such a contention. The respondent-importer cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of lapses on his part in not submitting complete document to enable the Revenue to finalize the assessment be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of receipt of relevant documents and as also in the circumstances wherein the said sanction has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No.213/2018 dated 30.5.2018 and interest claim of the importer already been rejected there under? 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The respondent is a manufacturer of iron and steel products and had imported 12 consignments of coking coal/PCI coal/steam coal during the period from 6.5.2014 to 20.4.2015 from M/s. JSW International Tradecorp. Pvt. Ltd. The importer claimed refund of 1% of extra duty deposit (for short EDD ) paid after issue of Special Valuation Branch(for short SVB ). However, the claim of the importer was rejected vide order dated 12.7.2016 on the ground that assessment was not finalized as contemplated under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962(for short Act, 1962 ) and therefore, the authority was of the view that the claim of refund was premature. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of rejection of refund, the respondent-importer preferred an appeal. The appellate Authority remitted the matter to the lower adjudicating authority. The refund sanctioning authority in OIO.No.152/2018 after h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is already paid and respondent is now seeking interest on the alleged delayed payment of the refund amount. The counsel for the appellant would submit to this Court that CESTAT has not assigned any reasons while setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The CESTAT has simply relied on the judgments rendered by the Apex Court without examining the actual controversy between the parties and also the records. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently argue and contend that the CESTAT, Bengaluru, after examining the report has passed the final order directing the Revenue to pay interest for the delayed refund of EDD. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement(Bharat) Limited .vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs(Refunds) Chennai 2020-TIOL-65-HC-MAD-CUS, he would submit to this Court that where the provisional assessment is being resorted to, the investigation and finalization of assessment must be completed within four months from the date of reply and the contention of the Revenue that there is no time limit for finalization of provisional assessment was negatived in the judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected for non-submission of the documents. Pursuant to the show-cause notice, the importer has furnished 11 duplicate copies of bills of entries and four original copies of capital TR6 challans. We would find that the importer has produced these documents duly certified by Chartered Accountant only on 11.10.2017. The Department has sanctioned refund only after due verification of documents. 11. The importer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority questioning the order passed by the Original Authority. The Appellate Authority having verified the documents and also having given its due consideration to the reasons assigned by the Original Authority concurred and affirmed the reasons assigned by the Original Authority. The Appellate Authority was also of the view that the refund is sanctioned well within the time of three months from the date of receipt of last document from the importer and therefore, question of awarding interest will not arise. 12. On perusal of the order passed by the CESTAT however, we would find that the Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court and by plainly relying on the judgments has come to the conclusion that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
