Court Quashes Sanction Order for Refund, Bars Coercive Action During Appeal

The court quashed the order sanctioning a refund but appropriating it towards pending liabilities without notice or hearing. It held that coercive measures during appeal pendency were impermissible under a circular. The circular's interpretation allowed deductions under Customs Act Section 142. The court found the petitioner's appeal valid despite the name discrepancy. The court directed a fresh order considering all facts, allowing respondents to encash the bank guarantee and retain the deposit, pending any further challenge.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Appropriation of refund against pending liabilities.
2. Legality of coercive measures for recovery during the pendency of appeals.
3. Interpretation of the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
4. Application of Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Relevance of the name under which the petitioner filed the appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appropriation of Refund Against Pending Liabilities:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 21.11.2016, which sanctioned a refund of Rs. 15 lakhs but appropriated it towards the petitioner’s liability arising from an order dated 25.04.2016. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 15 lakhs pursuant to a court order and sought its refund after succeeding in an appeal. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs appropriated this refund against another demand of Rs. 13 lakhs towards duty drawback and Rs. 3.13 crores towards penalty, without issuing any notice or granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

2. Legality of Coercive Measures for Recovery During Pendency of Appeals:
The petitioner argued that the respondents were not entitled to adjust the refund or invoke the bank guarantee during the pendency of the appeal, citing a notification dated 16.09.2014 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. This circular stipulated that no coercive measures for recovery should be taken during the pendency of an appeal if the stipulated pre-deposit of 7.5% or 10% was made. The court agreed that the adjustment of the refund constituted a coercive measure.

3. Interpretation of the Circular Issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs:
The court examined whether the circular placed an absolute bar on recovering amounts in excess of the pre-deposit during the pendency of an appeal. It concluded that the word "shall" in clause 4.2 of the circular should be read as "may" to avoid conflict with Section 142 of the Customs Act. The court reasoned that if the circular were construed as an absolute bar, it would be contrary to the statutory provisions and could lead to unjust results for the revenue.

4. Application of Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962:
Section 142 allows the proper officer to deduct amounts payable under the Act from any money owing to the person, which is under the control of the officer. The refund in question was considered an amount under the control of the customs officer. Therefore, the proper officer was entitled to deduct the refund towards the claims of Rs. 13 lakhs and Rs. 3.13 crores. The court upheld the statutory right of the officer to make such deductions, subject to the officer considering all relevant facts.

5. Relevance of the Name Under Which the Petitioner Filed the Appeal:
One of the reasons for the impugned order was that an appeal had not been filed in the name of one of the proprietary firms. The court found this irrelevant, as the firms were merely names under which the petitioner carried on business as a sole proprietor. The petitioner filing the appeal served the purpose of challenging the demand, regardless of the business name used.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order and directed the officer to pass a fresh order considering all facts and circumstances. The respondents were entitled to encash the bank guarantee and retain the amount deposited, subject to the fresh order and the result of any subsequent challenge. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

---