TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.9.1991, loading the value declared by the appellant as 8.3%. 1.1 Against the said order dated 4.9.1991, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who vide order dated 6.1.1992 upheld the loading of 8.3% but restricted the same upto the period prior to introduction of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and held that for the subsequent period, the transaction value has to be accepted. 1.2 Aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.1992 of the Collector (Appeals) both the appellant as well as the department filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its final order dated 5.1.1994 rejected the appeal field by the appellant and allowed the appeal filed by the department. 1.3 Further appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of additional evidences produced by the appellant before the Tribunal. Pursuant to such remand, the Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 25.8.2000 allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and directed the department to finalize the assessment based on the transaction value. 1.4 The department filed civil ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er with interest at applicable rates. 1.10 The department then filed SLP to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order of the Hon'ble High Court dismissing the application for restoration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 4.2.2013 in SLP Nos. 3105 and 3106 dismissed the petition filed by the department. 1.11 Ultimately, the provisional assessments were finalized on 10.10.2015 nearly after 15 years after receiving a contempt notice from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras moved in the matter by the appellant vide contempt petition dated 5.6.2014. The refund for the principal amount was then sanctioned without any interest vide Order-in-Original No. 41918/2015 dated 12.10.2015. The appellant made claim for interest on 18.11.2015 on delayed sanction of the refunds. Further, the Order-in-Original No. 41918/2015 dated 12.10.2015 in respect of 238 Bills of Entry for the claim amount of Rs. 1,14,44,338/- had sanctioned only Rs. 98,73,350/- and rejected the claim for a sum of Rs. 15,70,988/- on the ground that the Group has not finally assessed 27 Bills of entry. Appellants preferred appeal against such Order in Original before the Commissioner (Appeals). 1.12 The Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the assessment within four months, the department has not done so. The time limit as per this circular was also not complied. There has been, thus, deliberate and uncalled delay on the part of the department by taking more than 15 years to finalize the assessment. It is also submitted by him that the department had finalized the assessment only when the appellant had approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing a contempt petition. This proves that the department was deliberately delaying the matter of fianlising the assessment. 2.3 He relied upon the decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune - 2006 (196) ELT 257 (SC) and argued that in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had analyzed the issue whether assessee was entitled to claim interest for the delay in sanctioning the refund claim. The Apex Court held that tax can only be collected in accordance with law and in case of collection of excess tax or withholding any amount from the assessee without authority of law, the Revenue must compensate the assessee. Thus, the assessee in the said case was awarded interest, on the interest which was wrongfully withheld by the Department. The case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant cannot contend that the department has slept over the finalization of assessment and has thus delayed the refund. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals - 2013 (296) ELT 433 (SC). The decision of the Apex Court in the case Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) was considered by the Apex Court in this case and has clarified that in Sandvik Asia Ltd., the Court was considering the issue whether the assessee who is made to wait for refund of interest for decades be compensated for the delay after the lapse of statutory period to pay the interest. He submitted that the Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. case was considering the delay caused in granting the statutory interest and therefore directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the same which was not in the nature of interest on interest. Whereas in the present case, as per sub-section (4) of Section 18, since the refund has been granted within three months of finalization of assessment, as per law, the appellant is not entitled to any interest. Therefore, there is no question of granting compensation for the same. The delay if any, in finalization of assessment was only beca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by Supreme Court and CEGAT which reads as under:- "Since Supreme Court has dismissed appeal, we have to implement the CEGAT Order No. 677 - 688/2000 dated 25.8.2000". All pending case may be finalized based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court order and CEGAT". 6. The appellant filed two refund claims on 11.12.2001 which were rejected on 8.2.2002/13.2.2002. The matter reached Tribunal and vide order dated 21.9.2004, the Tribunal directed to finalize the assessment. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "14. In the result, it is ordered as follows:- (a) All the 238 Bills of Entry filed between March 1994 and February 1998 in respect of the goods imported by the appellants from Caterpillars through Chennai Seaport shall be finally assessed by the original authority in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice, whereupon it will be open to the appellants to file a claim for refund within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. (b) As directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the original authority shall finalize the provisional assessments in respect of the 438 Bills of Entry for the period 1987 - 88 to 1991 - 92 in acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as filed petitions before the High Court. Thus, till the date of finalization of assessment, the matter was under litigation. Whether such litigation was fruitful is not the concern of this Tribunal. On facts, it is brought out that the refund has been sanctioned within three months from the date of finalization of provisional assessment. Section 18(4) provides to pay interest only when the refund is delayed beyond three months after finalization of assessment. The relevant provision contained in section 18(4) is reproduced as under:- "18. Provisional assessment of duty (4) Subject to sub-section (5), if any refundable amount referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) is not refunded under that sub-section within three months from the date of assessment of duty finally [or re-assessment of duty, as the case may be], there shall be paid an interest on such unrefunded amount at such rate fixed by the Central Government under section 27A till the date of refund of such amount." The said provision does not require to pay interest when refund has been sanctioned within a period of three months from the date of finalization. It may be correct that the Board vide its Circular dated....