2020 (1) TMI 362 - AT - Customs

Imported waste paper redemption fine and penalty set aside, appellant entitled to refund; unwarranted objections overturned.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's imposition of redemption fine and penalty on imported waste paper, entitling the appellant to a refund. The ... Refund of amount deposited - principles of unjust enrichment - deficiencies in the TR-6 Challan produced by the appellant - Confiscation of imported consignments - waste paper - imposition of penalty - confiscation and penalty was imposed on the ground that the declaration made by the appellant was not proper - HELD THAT:- The objection raised by the revenue are unwarranted, inasmuch as, it is the same TR-6 Challan on which the fine and penalty was deposited and no objection was raised by the revenue at that point of time. Even if the authorities were of the view that the TR-6 Challans produced by the appellant is not perfect, there must be parallel evidences to show that the said deposits were made by the assessee. It is not the revenue’s case that redemption fine and penalty was not deposited by them during the pendency of adjudication. The consignment was cleared by the Customs only on such deposits. The records maintained by the appellant would also reveal the deposit of the said amounts. To reject the refunds claim claims on such flimsy grounds is nothing but harassment of the litigant, which cannot be appreciated at any point of time. Also, the appellant have produced a certified copy of the challan from the bank indicating that the said deposits were made by the assessee in their bank. Principles of Unjust Enrichment - HELD THAT:- The refund relates to the redemption fine and penalty which was deposited by the appellant at the time of clearance of their consignment in terms of the order passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority. The said pre-deposits made for the purpose of filing an appeal before Tribunal as also for clearance of the goods has been held to be not attracted to the provisions of unjust-enrichment, inasmuch as, the same were not made in the ordinary course of business. To deny the refund of the same to the appellant, on success of their appeal before Tribunal, on the ground of unjust-enrichment, amounts to unjustified action on the part of Revenue. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on imported waste paper.2. Rejection of refund claim by revenue authorities.3. Validity of TR-6 Challans and unjust-enrichment.4. Appeal against the rejection of refund and consequential relief.Analysis:1. The appellant imported waste paper, leading to proceedings for confiscation and penalty. The Commissioner imposed a redemption fine and penalty, later set aside by the Tribunal in the Final Order dated 1-8-2012, entitling the appellant to a refund of the amounts deposited during adjudication.2. The appellant sought a refund, rejected by the Original Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) due to doubts on TR-6 Challans and unjust-enrichment. The Tribunal found the revenue's objections on TR-6 Challans unwarranted, emphasizing that the deposits were made by the appellant and cleared by Customs, with records and bank challans supporting the same.3. Regarding unjust-enrichment, the Tribunal clarified that the pre-deposits for filing an appeal and clearance of goods were not in the ordinary course of business, thus not falling under unjust-enrichment provisions. Denying the refund on these grounds was deemed unjustified by the Tribunal.4. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and directing immediate implementation for refund to the appellant. The authorities were instructed to refund the amount promptly, with the appellant advised to pursue interest payment issues with lower authorities.