2024 (7) TMI 1411 - AT - Customs

Revenue appeals dismissed following CBIC National Litigation Policy instructions on customs duty refunds

Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana Versus Khanna Paper Mills Ltd

CESTAT Chandigarh dismissed two revenue appeals without examining merits, following National Litigation Policy instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by ... Refund of excess paid customs duty with interest at applicable rate from the date of deposit till the date of refund - rejection on the ground that NIC has not confirmed integration of payments of duties of customs - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present case is of grant of interest by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) from the date of deposit till the date of refund paid at the prescribed rate. As per the respondent, the amount of interest, if calculated @12%, comes to Rs.7,89,678/- in Appeal No. C/60381/2022 and Rs.13,590/- in Appeal No. C/60382/2022 respectively. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD PATPARGANJ & OTHER ICDS VERSUS VSM IMPEX PVT. LTD. [2024 (5) TMI 1404 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] is gone through wherein Division Bench of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 60260-60285/2024 dt. 22.05.2024 has rejected 26 appeals filed by the Revenue under the National Litigation Policy by holding that the appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC. The present two appeals are also not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC - both the appeals of the Revenue dismissed without going into the merits of the case. Issues:1. Grant of refund and interest by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Double payment of customs duty by the respondent.3. Rejection of refund claims by the adjudicating authority.4. Legality of interest granted under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962.5. Applicability of National Litigation Policy on the appeals filed by the Revenue.Issue 1: Grant of refund and interest by the Commissioner (Appeals):The appeals by the Revenue were directed against the order granting refund with interest to the respondent by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent had filed refund claims for excess paid customs duty, supported by evidence of double payment on the same Bills of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals, leading to the Revenue challenging the grant of interest from the date of deposit till the date of refund.Issue 2: Double payment of customs duty by the respondent:The respondent made double payments of customs duty for six Bills of Entry, as evidenced by the e-challans and payment transaction details submitted. The adjudicating authority observed discrepancies in the integration of payments with the Indian Customs EDI System, leading to the rejection of the refund claims based on the National Informatics Centre's response regarding the integration status of payments.Issue 3: Rejection of refund claims by the adjudicating authority:The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims due to the lack of confirmation from the National Informatics Centre regarding the integration of excess payments. The authority emphasized the importance of proper documentation to establish the double payment and the crediting of the amount to the government exchequer.Issue 4: Legality of interest granted under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962:The learned Authorized Representative argued that the interest granted under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable, emphasizing the incomplete application and lack of proof regarding the excess payment integration. The duty was paid under Section 27 of the Act, and the judgments cited were deemed inapplicable to the interest issue.Issue 5: Applicability of National Litigation Policy on the appeals filed by the Revenue:The Counsel for the respondent contended that the appeals by the Revenue were not maintainable under the National Litigation Policy, citing previous Tribunal decisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) was praised for granting interest and shifting the burden of verification to the department, leading to the argument that the appeals were not maintainable under the Policy.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing the National Litigation Policy instructions issued by the CBIC. The issue of interest granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was crucial, with the Tribunal finding the appeals not maintainable under the Policy, thereby upholding the decision to grant refund and interest to the respondent without delving into the case's merits.