TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Tribunal upholds refund claim, emphasizing deposited amounts during investigation. Previous cases support equitable refund grants.</h1> <h3>C C-NEW DELHI ICD TKD EXPORT Versus SEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD</h3> C C-NEW DELHI ICD TKD EXPORT Versus SEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD - 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1287 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Refund claim based on amount deposited during investigation.2. Appropriation of duty amount against deposited sum.3. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Commissioner.4. Legal provision for refund in customs law.5. Applicability of case laws on refund claims.Analysis:Issue 1: Refund claim based on amount deposited during investigationThe Commissioner of Customs (Export) filed an appeal against an order allowing the refund claim of the respondents, M/s SEL Manufacturing Company Ltd., for an amount deposited during a DRI investigation. The respondents had deposited a significant sum during the investigation, part of which was in cash/cheque/DD and part by surrendering DEPB/Excise rebate claims. The appeal raised concerns about the refund eligibility of the balance amount deposited during the investigation.Issue 2: Appropriation of duty amount against deposited sumThe Assistant Commissioner (Refund) sanctioned a refund after adjusting interest and penalties from the cash portion of the deposited amount. The order specified the appropriation of the duty amount against the DEPB/Rebate amount. The Revenue accepted this order without further appeal, indicating acknowledgment of the appropriation of the deposited sum against the duty liability.Issue 3: Rejection of refund claim by Assistant CommissionerA second refund claim was filed by the respondents, seeking a refund of the balance amount deposited during the investigation. However, this claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds of the absence of specific guidelines in customs law for such refunds in cash. This rejection led to the filing of an appeal by the respondents before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).Issue 4: Legal provision for refund in customs lawThe appeal highlighted the absence of guidelines from the Board or DEPB authorities regarding refunding the balance DEPB amount in cash to the assessee. The department argued that there was no legal provision for such refunds, citing previous judgments like Milton Laminate Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. Midland Plastics Ltd. to support their position.Issue 5: Applicability of case laws on refund claimsThe respondents argued that the benefits surrendered during the investigation were considered as amounts deposited by the department throughout the process. They cited various case laws, including Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Ltd. v. Union of India and Allen Diesels India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, where courts allowed refund claims despite duty payment using DEPB. The respondents emphasized that the department regularly granted refunds in similar cases based on equitable principles, even in the absence of clear legal provisions.The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs, upholding the refund claim of the respondents based on the amount deposited during the investigation. The decision emphasized that once benefits surrendered by the respondents were treated as deposited amounts during investigations, the refund of the excess sum had to be granted. The judgment also highlighted previous cases where courts allowed refunds despite duty payment using DEPB, reinforcing the principle of granting refunds based on equitable considerations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
