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>Court orders refund with interest, faults rejection based on model discrepancies, lack of auditor's certificate.</h1> <h3>Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd., Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Custom (Refunds), Chennai</h3> Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd., Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Custom (Refunds), Chennai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Rejection of refund claim due to discrepancy in model numbers.2. Adherence to procedural regulations for refund claims.3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition despite the availability of an alternate remedy.4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Refund Claim Due to Discrepancy in Model Numbers:The petitioner imported an 'Escalator in SKD condition' and paid Additional Duty of Customs. Upon selling the escalator in India, the petitioner sought a refund of the Additional Duty under Notification No.102/2007. The refund claim was rejected because the model numbers in the import documents were missing in the sales invoices, leading to the conclusion that the goods sold were not the same as those imported. The petitioner argued that the required statutory certificates and correlation statements were provided, certifying that the imported goods were the same as those sold locally.2. Adherence to Procedural Regulations for Refund Claims:The court noted that Notification No.102/2007 and Circular No.6/2008 prescribe the procedure for claiming a refund, which includes submitting a certificate from the statutory auditor correlating the imported goods with the sold goods. The petitioner complied with these requirements by submitting the necessary certificates and correlation statements. The court observed that the respondent deviated from the prescribed procedure by rejecting the refund claim based on discrepancies in model numbers without considering the statutory auditor's certificate.3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Despite the Availability of an Alternate Remedy:The respondent argued that the Writ Petition should be dismissed as the petitioner did not exhaust the alternate remedy of an appeal. The court referred to a previous decision where the Single Judge's view that a Writ Petition cannot be maintained without exhausting alternate remedies was set aside. The court emphasized that the Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when there is a violation of the prescribed procedure and the order is without jurisdiction.4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The court highlighted that the impugned order was made without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, which is a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The court reiterated that a Writ Petition is maintainable in cases where there is a lack of jurisdiction or a violation of fundamental rights or Principles of Natural Justice, as established in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Conclusion:The court concluded that the rejection of the refund claim was contrary to the procedural regulations and exceeded the respondent's jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to refund the claim with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the refund application. The refund amount was to be disbursed within four weeks from the receipt of the court's order. The Writ Petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
