TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in No.21384/2018. 2. This Court on 10.06.2019 has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CSTAT, is justified/correct in holding that the interest is payable in the said refund claim when the instant refund has been sanctioned within the prescribed period of three months from the receipt of all the requisite documents? 2) Whether, the awarding of payment of interest by the CESTAT in the case is justified/correct in terms of Section 18(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 as the claimant needs to file the refund claim only after finalization of assessment as per the provisions of Section 27(1B)(c) read with Section 18(4) of the Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnational Tradecorp. Pvt. Ltd. The importer claimed refund of 1% of extra duty deposit (for short "EDD") paid after issue of Special Valuation Branch(for short "SVB"). However, the claim of the importer was rejected vide order dated 12.7.2016 on the ground that assessment was not finalized as contemplated under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962(for short "Act, 1962") and therefore, the authority was of the view that the claim of refund was premature. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of rejection of refund, the respondent-importer preferred an appeal. The appellate Authority remitted the matter to the lower adjudicating authority. The refund sanctioning authority in OIO.No.152/2018 after having recorded a finding that the assessment ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is supported by all requisite statutory documents. He would submit to this Court that all statutory documents means and includes supporting documentary evidence prescribed under Section 27(1-A). Learned counsel by taking this Court to the relevant records would profusely argue and contend that prescribed documents were submitted only 11.10.2017 and refund was sanctioned within three months and therefore, question of paying interest on refund would not arise. He would also counter the claim of the respondents in terms of Circular dated 23.2.2001 and by taking this Court to para 9 of the Circular, he would submit to this Court that if assessments are not completed within four months, the assessee is not required to continue to pay EDD. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is no difference in the amount of duty payable. He would further contend that in such cases there is no question of finalization of assessment and entire 1% EDD is required to be refunded to the importer immediately on issue of SVB order. 8. Learned counsel for respondent countering the grounds urged in the appeal in regard to incomplete application for refund would contend that the Customs Department has not shown that the authority had issued any defective memo or deficiency memo when the application for refund of EDD was submitted to the Department on 22.4.2016. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Hamdard(WAQF) Laboratories 2016 (333) ELT 193 (SC) would submit to this Court that it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the show-cause notice, the importer has furnished 11 duplicate copies of bills of entries and four original copies of capital TR6 challans. We would find that the importer has produced these documents duly certified by Chartered Accountant only on 11.10.2017. The Department has sanctioned refund only after due verification of documents. 11. The importer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority questioning the order passed by the Original Authority. The Appellate Authority having verified the documents and also having given its due consideration to the reasons assigned by the Original Authority concurred and affirmed the reasons assigned by the Original Authority. The Appellate Authority was also of the view that the refu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be finalized. It can also be gathered from the records that the importer had not enclosed all relevant documents until a show-cause notice was issued by the Department which is dated 7.7.2017. It is only after receipt of documents which was submitted on 11.10.2017, the refund has been sanctioned by the Department which is well within the prescribed time limit of three months from the date of receipt of relevant documents. The Appellate Authority has concurred with the reasons assigned by the Original Authority. Therefore, the contention of the respondent-importer that even if the application was defective, the same at the most may amount irregularity and hence, the Department cannot escape the liability of paying interest in terms of ....