2021 (10) TMI 599 - HC - Customs

Court upholds taxpayer's refund right, allows Revenue to collect unpaid duty

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Versus M/s. S.V. SIVALINGA NADAR & SONS

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order directing a refund to the respondent. ... Refund of amount deposited during the investigation by the respondent - errors apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT:- The grounds raised do not relate to alleged errors apparent on the face of the record, and no error, in fact, is pointed out in the judgment under review. However, from the circumstances now brought to our notice, firstly, the Department is independent and none has restricted the authority or stifled the functional duty of the Revenue to act in determining the duty/additional duty payable by the respondent against the subject import in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Revenue is independent in its authority and given liberty to proceed in accordance with law in determining the duty/additional duty, as the case may be, payable by the respondent by passing necessary orders - Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Review of the Tribunal's order directing refund of amount deposited during investigation.2. Dispute over liability to pay additional duty and quantum of duty.3. Revenue's right to collect duty/additional duty from the respondent.4. Grounds for the relief of review and the decision of the High Court.Analysis:1. The appellant, a Review Petitioner, challenged Customs Appeal No.3/2018 filed by the Revenue against the Final Order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, directing a refund to the respondent. The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, leading to the Review Petition.2. The Revenue contended that the respondent remained liable to pay additional duty, emphasizing that the dispute was over the quantum of duty. The Revenue argued that a complete refund would prejudice the Department, as the respondent's liability to pay duty remains until adjudication determines the final duty amount. The High Court considered these arguments but found no errors in the judgment under review.3. Learned ASGI representing the Review Petitioner highlighted the duty-bound obligation of the respondent to pay duty/additional duty under the Customs Act. The High Court acknowledged the Revenue's concern over substantial revenue involved and granted liberty to the Revenue to determine and collect the duty/additional duty payable by the respondent.4. The High Court, after examining the factual and legal basis for the review, concluded that the raised grounds did not reveal any apparent errors in the judgment. Despite dismissing the Review Petition, the Court emphasized the Revenue's independence and authority to act in determining the duty/additional duty payable by the respondent in accordance with the law. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to proceed with necessary orders for duty collection, thereby maintaining the Department's autonomy in enforcing duty payments.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the dispute over duty liability, the Tribunal's refund order, and the Revenue's right to collect duty/additional duty, culminating in the High Court's decision to dismiss the Review Petition while affirming the Revenue's authority to determine and collect the duty owed by the respondent.