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>Tribunal denies refund claim, upholds status quo. Appeal dismissed for lack of merit.</h1> <h3>Sky Airways Versus Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), New Delhi</h3> Sky Airways Versus Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), New Delhi - TMI Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claim, jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, pre-deposit amount, maintain status quo, dismissal of appeal.Analysis:1. Appeal against rejection of refund claim: The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 3,00,82,889/- by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant contended that the amount voluntarily deposited during the investigation should be treated as a pre-deposit and refunded since the appeal filed by the appellant was successful in setting aside the demand. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected this contention, stating that the amount was not deposited at the time of filing the appeal. The Tribunal had remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the parties to maintain status quo until the issue was resolved. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim in the order dated June 17, 2019.2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs: The Tribunal had earlier addressed the issue of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to issue the show cause notice. The Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue after the Supreme Court decision in another case. The Tribunal directed that the status quo be maintained until a final decision was reached. The matter was not adjudicated upon by the Assistant Commissioner after the remand.3. Pre-deposit amount and maintain status quo: The appellant had not deposited the amount as a pre-deposit, and the Tribunal had specifically directed the parties to maintain status quo. The appellant's request for a refund of the voluntarily deposited amount was rejected since it had been confirmed and appropriated by the previous order. The Tribunal's order to maintain status quo bound the appellant, preventing them from seeking a refund.4. Dismissal of appeal: The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and submissions, found no merit in the appeal. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed to be free from any infirmity that would warrant interference by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the refund claim.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the importance of following its directions to maintain status quo and denying the appellant's request for a refund of the amount deposited voluntarily during the investigation. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the lack of merit in challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.
TaxTMI 