9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a refund claim, claiming refund of SAD paid with reference to certain imports carried out through Bills of Entry No.7880381 and 7880383 both dated 02.01.2015, in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007, on 07.01.2016. 2.3 A deficiency memo was issued against the said refund claim. In the mean time, the said company went into insolvency before the NCLT. The claim was resubmitted by the Insolvency Resolution Professional on 10.10.2019 and was duly sanctioned on 09.01.2020. However, due to certain problems with account details provided by the beneficiary, the amount could not be transferred to the account of beneficiary. Several attempts made by the revenue authorities to reach out the recipient. Subsequently, Shri Rajiv Bansal was appointed Liquidator for Corporate Debtor by NCLT and hence the amount was sought to be transferred to him instead of Shri Vikram Kumar for which revenue sought clarification from Shri Vikram Kumar vide letter dated 23.10.2020. 2.4 Shri Vikram Kumar vide mail dated 26.12.2020 confirmed that Shri Rajiv Bansal has been appointed as official liquidator and vide letter dated 13.09.2022 bank details were called from Shri Rajiv Bansal. 2.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cent per annum as is for the time being fixed [by the Central Government the Notification in the Official Gazette] on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: A reading of the above provision implies that interest liability would occur only when the amount is not refunded within a period of 03 months However, refund is a process that comprises claiming refund, its processing, sanction and transfer into a designated bank account. Until sanction of the refund amount and issuance of funds for making payment of the refund amount, the process and resources are within the control of the department. But once the funds have been issued by the department, the process goes in the hands of the banks (sender and receiver). The correctness of the account details submitted by the recipient of the refund amount also plays an important role in the process If the account details are not proper or due to some other problem the amount doesn't get transferred to the beneficiary account, there is hardly anything the department can do about it. Department can only request the refund seeke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find any merit in the claim of interest on refund amount made by the appellant in terms of provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. Provisions of law cannot be seen in isolation. The circumstances leading to the situation must also be considered and relied upon. (ii) Whether any compensation on account of the delay in credit of the refund amount in appellant's account, is payable? This question is indirectly linked to the first question in as much as, had the findings relating to the Question (i) been against the department, further analysis of the subject matter was required. Now that it has been found out that whatever delay has occurred in transfer of money to beneficiary account had been due to glitch of the system or the account details being incorrect Hence, no fault appears to have been committed by the department. Therefore, no compensation is necessary." 4.3 We find that the claim of the appellant that interest @15% should be admissible is based upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred by the Counsel during the course of argument. In the said decision following has been held:- "24. At this stage, we may mention that in exercise of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genous, and used in the projects, the condition 'manufactured in India', a pre-requisite for grant of deemed export benefit, was satisfied in view of the fact that such activities being undertaken at the project site constituted 'manufacture' as per the definition provided in the Exim Policy. Accordingly, it was clarified that the duties, customs and central excise, suffered on such goods should be refunded through the duty drawback route. Referring to the previous circular dated 20.08.1998, it was further clarified that excise duty paid on supply of inputs, such as, cement, steel etc., would be refunded through the duty drawback route in the same manner as in any other case of excisable goods being supplied to any other project qualifying for deemed export benefit, subject to the project authority certifying the receipt and use of such inputs in the project. 27. As already noted above, a Policy Interpretation Committee was constituted. The said committee held a meeting on 07.10.2002, chaired by the DGFT. One of the agenda items deliberated upon in the said meeting was the claim of the respondent regarding inclusion of excise duty component in the price quoted before the project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion letter dated 10.07.2003, respondent was informed by the office of DGFT that there was no 24 provision for payment of interest on the deemed export duty drawback. Therefore, the request for payment of interest could not be agreed upon. 29. Learned Single Judge referred to the circular dated 05.12.2000 and observed that pursuant thereto appellants had paid the duty drawback to the respondent. However, there was delay in payment of duty drawback at least from the date of the clarificatory circular dated 05.12.2000. Therefore, respondent would be entitled to interest from the date of the clarification till the date of payment. After observing that the Customs Act provides for interest on delayed refund within the range from five percent to thirty percent, learned Single Judge directed the appellants to pay interest on the delayed refund from the date of the clarificatory circular dated 05.12.2000 till the date of payment within a period of three months. 30. Appellants filed Writ Appeal No.356 of 2006 assailing the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, respondent also filed a writ appeal being Writ Appeal No.3699 of 2005 assailing the directions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the minute the Exim Policy came into force the benefit of duty drawback automatically became available to the respondent and that the clarification was only with regard to the doubts expressed in some quarters as to whether civil construction works were also entitled to such benefit. By virtue of the two circulars dated 20.08.1998 and 05.12.2000, no new right or benefit came to be created; those two circulars were clarificatory in nature only clarifying that the benefit under the Exim Policy 1992-1997 was available to civil construction as well. Therefore, such benefit would take effect from the date of the Exim Policy. It was thereafter that the Division Bench posed the further question as to what would be the rate of interest on the delayed refund. In this connection, the Division Bench referred to Sections 27A and 75A of the Customs Act and came to the conclusion that the date of payment of interest would have to be on expiry of the period of three months from the date of making an application for refund of duty drawback. The Division Bench held that the respondent would be entitled to interest from the date of expiry of three months after submission of applications for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act clarifies that the expression 'the date of payment of duty or interest' in relation to a person other than an importer shall be construed as 'the date of purchase of goods' by such person. 33. Therefore, on a conjoint and careful reading of the relevant provisions of the Exim Policy, 1992-1997 in conjunction with the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act, it is evident that supply of goods to the project in question by the respondent was a case of 'deemed export' and thus entitled to the benefit under the Duty Drawback Scheme. The language employed in the policy made this very clear and there was no ambiguity in respect of such entitlement. 34. Even if there was any doubt, the same was fully explained by the 1995 Rules. In fact, under the definition clause of the 1995 Rules, duty drawback, in relation to any goods manufactured in India and exported has been defined to mean the rebate of duty or tax chargeable on any imported materials or excisable materials used or taxable services used in the manufacture of such goods. In the preceding paragraphs, we have noted the meaning of the expressions 'excisable materials' and 'manufacture'. 34.1 Rule 3 of the 1995 Rules makes i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund. Since there was belated refund of the duty drawback to the respondent, it was entitled to interest at the rate which was fixed by the Central Government at the relevant point of time being fifteen percent." 4.4 We find at the relevant time by Notification No.75/2003- Cus(N.T.) dated 12.09.2003 interest rate of 6% has been prescribed. The text of the said notification is reproduced bellow:- "Notification under Section 27A Interest @ 6% per annum for delayed refund-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 25/2002-Customs (N.T.), dated 13th May, 2002 [GSR 356(E), dated 13th May, 2002], except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby fixes the rate of interest at six per cent per annum for the purposes of the said section." 4.5 In terms of the said notification along with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, the interest is prescribed @6% would only be admissible to the appellant for the period of delay. 4.6 We also n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1921] 1 K.B. 64 and Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 8 SCC 739]." 4.7 In view of the above decision, we do not find any merit in the impugned order, rejecting the claim of interest made by the appellant for the delay in crediting the amount to the account of beneficiary. 4.8 As the entire delay has been on the account of the dispute between the Resolution Professional earlier appointed in the matter and the Official Liquidator appointed subsequently, we are in agreement with the findings recorded in the impugned order to the effect that appellant is not entitled to any compensation. Compensation claimed would also not be admissible under Customs Act,1962 as the statute do not provide for any such compensation to be paid in any manner. Commissioner (Appeals) nor this Tribunal, being creature of Customs Act, 1962, can grant any compensation as claimed by the appellant. In case of Singh Enterprises [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)] Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are ves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
