Tribunal reinstates refund order of Rs. 22,500, finding denial unjust. Pre-deposit made solely by appellant.

The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and reinstated the adjudicating authority's order to refund the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 22,500. The Tribunal found the denial of refund unjust and unsustainable due to lack of evidence supporting the denial. The Tribunal noted that the pre-deposit was made solely by the appellant in the name of the importer, as confirmed by the importer's NOC, ruling out the possibility of a dual claim for refund. The judgment was delivered by Shri P. Dinesha, Member (J) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI on 29-10-2018.

---

---

Issues: Denial of refund of pre-deposit of Rs. 22,500.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the denial of refund of a pre-deposit amount of Rs. 22,500.
2. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the refund as it found a double payment towards pre-deposit, which was required to be refunded under Section 27(1B)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) set aside the order and the refund upon appeal by the Revenue.
3. During the hearing, the appellant claimed that the initial pre-deposit was made in the name of the importer by mistake and was later rectified by making a second pre-deposit in their own name. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this claim, stating that the first pre-deposit was made in the name of the importer, M/s. Sree Sai Inc.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund based on an assumption that a pre-deposit made by one party cannot be reversed by another, without providing any documentary evidence to support this claim. The Revenue did not contest the fact that both pre-deposits were made by the appellant alone.
5. The importer's No Objection Certificate (NOC) confirmed that the pre-deposit was made only by the appellant in the name of the importer, indicating that the importer did not make the payment. This rules out the possibility of a dual claim for refund on the same pre-deposit.
6. The Tribunal noted that the mode of payment for the initial pre-deposit was through DD/BPO, and if the reviewing authority had investigated further, it could have determined whether the appellant or the importer had drawn the DD/BPO. However, this aspect was not examined.
7. Considering the lack of evidence supporting the denial of refund, the Tribunal concluded that the denial was unjust and unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and reinstated the decision of the adjudicating authority to refund the pre-deposit amount.
8. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 29-10-2018 by Shri P. Dinesha, Member (J) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI.

---