Appellate tribunal rules in favor of appellant on rent payment issue, deeming amount refundable.

The appellate tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay rent for goods stored at a CWC warehouse as the adjudication order only required payment of redemption fine, penalties, and duty. Since the appellant paid the rent under protest and had no obligation to do so, the tribunal deemed the amount refundable. The tribunal set aside the denial of the refund claim and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim denial for rent paid on behalf of Revenue to CWC warehouse.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of a refund claim for rent paid on behalf of the Revenue to CWC warehouse. The facts revealed that goods, both imported and indigenous, were seized during an investigation. While the seizure of imported goods was accepted, the indigenous goods were taken to a new custom house and later to a CWC warehouse without the appellant's knowledge. After adjudication, the goods were allowed to be redeemed by the appellant on payment of redemption fine, penalties, and duty. Subsequently, the appellant was asked to pay rent to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), NCH, New Delhi, for the period the goods were stored at the CWC warehouse. The appellant paid the rent under protest and later filed a refund claim, which was rejected on the grounds of limitation and finality of the adjudication order. The appellant contended that since the adjudication order did not mandate payment of rent, they were not liable to pay rent and the amount paid should be refunded. The appellant argued that as the goods were in the custody of Revenue, they had no right to remove them, making the rent payable by the Revenue.

The appellate tribunal, after considering the submissions, observed that the adjudication order only required the appellant to pay redemption fine, penalties, and duty, which were duly paid. The adjudicating authority did not direct the appellant to pay rent for the period of goods seizure. Therefore, the tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay rent. As the appellant paid the rent under protest, the tribunal deemed the amount refundable as the appellant had no obligation to pay rent. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced on 5.12.2015.

---