2023 (8) TMI 800 - AT - Customs

Appeal for Rs. 2.5 Crore Refund Dismissed as Premature

Shree Krishna Paper Mills & Industries Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Central Goods & Service Tax, Jaipur

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal seeking a refund of Rs. 2.5 crores as premature due to the unresolved issue of the appropriation of the amount. The ... Violation of initial mandate of status quo - Refund of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- It is observed that in M/S SHREE KRISHNA PAPER MILLS & IND. LTD. VERSUS CC, JODHPUR [2017 (8) TMI 1522 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the issue about the proposal of duty demand along with penalty in show cause notice dated 4.9.2006 was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority, but only for the purpose of jurisdiction of the officer issuing the show cause notice. There are no findings found as far as the merits of the proposed demand are concerned in the said final order. The parties were directed to maintain the status quo. Though the said order stands set aside, in view of the order of this Tribunal in SHREE KRISHNA PAPER MILLS & INDUS. LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.) , JODHPUR [2019 (3) TMI 829 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it is observed that the impugned application seeking refund of Rs. 2.5 crores was filed prior to filing the said miscellaneous application seeking rectification. Hence the application is observed to be in violation of the directions of status quo of order dated 11.8.2017 as were live on 17.9.2017, the date of the application for refund. It is also observed from the order in SHREE KRISHNA PAPER MILLS & INDUS. LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.) , JODHPUR itself that the amount of deposit at the investigation stage cannot be considered as pre-deposit. The issue of the appropriation of the amount of Rs. 2.5 crores, the refund whereof has been in question in the impugned appeal is still not decided. Resultantly, the present appeal is held to be pre-mature and accordingly is dismissed is being pre-mature. Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are the jurisdiction of the officer issuing the show cause notice, violation of the initial mandate of status quo, the competence of the DRI officers to issue the show cause notice, and the pre-mature nature of the appeal seeking refund of Rs. 2.5 crores.Jurisdiction Issue:The appeal arose from a show cause notice issued to the appellant proposing recovery of duty amount and other financial obligations. The Tribunal had directed the original adjudicating authority to decide the issue of jurisdiction after a Supreme Court decision. The appellant filed an application seeking a refund before the decision on jurisdiction was made.Status Quo Violation:The Tribunal had directed to maintain status quo till the final decision, but the appellant filed a miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake, which was allowed, recalling the previous final order. The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court and later in the Supreme Court. The Departmental Representative argued that the appellant's application for refund violated the initial mandate of status quo.Competence of DRI Officers:The Departmental Representative mentioned that the issue of the competence of the DRI officers to issue the show cause notice was under consideration in another case. It was asserted that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur was the competent authority to issue the notice, as held in a previous order.Pre-mature Appeal:The Tribunal observed that the issue of the appropriation of the amount of Rs. 2.5 crores, which was the subject of the refund application, had not been decided yet. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed the present appeal seeking a refund as premature and dismissed it on those grounds.In summary, the judgment addressed various issues including the jurisdiction of the officer issuing the show cause notice, the violation of status quo, the competence of the DRI officers, and the pre-mature nature of the appeal seeking a refund of Rs. 2.5 crores. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following directives and awaiting final decisions before seeking refunds or making appeals, ultimately dismissing the appeal as premature.