2011 (4) TMI 719 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants appeal, refunds duty, and interest to appellant under protest.

M/s. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs Bangalore.

M/s. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs Bangalore. - 2011 (273) E.L.T. 399 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues Involved:1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is premature.2. Whether the appellant is liable for the customs duty or penalty.3. Whether the amount paid by the appellant should be refunded.4. Whether the appellant is entitled to interest for the delayed refund.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is premature:The appellant contended that the refund claim was not premature as they had paid the amount under protest, which was not due from them. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim stating it was premature because the adjudication process was still ongoing. The Tribunal found that the amount paid by the appellant could not be held in abeyance for appropriation towards any penalty that had been proposed but not yet imposed. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was not premature and set aside the impugned order.2. Whether the appellant is liable for the customs duty or penalty:The appellant argued that they were not the importers of the CDs containing SAP ERP software; their customers were. The Tribunal noted that the revenue authorities had issued show cause notices to the appellant's customers, indicating that the customers were considered the importers. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not liable for customs duty as they were not the importers. The amount paid by the appellant was towards the differential duty, which had already been collected from the importers. Therefore, the appellant could not be held liable for the duty or penalty.3. Whether the amount paid by the appellant should be refunded:The appellant had paid Rs.5,21,98,021/- under protest to safeguard their business interests. The Tribunal observed that the revenue authorities had already collected the differential duty from the importers, securing the revenue's interest. Citing various judgments, the Tribunal held that amounts not due from the assessee should be refunded. Since the revenue had collected the duty from the importers, the amount paid by the appellant should be refunded as there was no show cause notice holding the appellant as an importer liable to pay the duty.4. Whether the appellant is entitled to interest for the delayed refund:The appellant claimed interest for the delayed refund, citing several judgments. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the interest issue in the detailed analysis but implied that the appellant was entitled to consequential relief, which typically includes interest on delayed refunds. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal with consequential relief suggests that the appellant would be entitled to interest on the refunded amount.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The refund claim was not premature, the appellant was not liable for the customs duty or penalty, and the amount paid by the appellant should be refunded. The decision implies that the appellant is also entitled to interest for the delayed refund.