TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that excess paid amount. In the meanwhile, the department directed the appellants vide letter dated 16.9.2013 to submit the original importer copies of Ex-bond bills of entry and Chartered Accountant's certificate on unjust enrichment. Accordingly, after due process of law, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund of Rs.7,12,70,639/- with respect to 67 refund claims filed between 29.05.2007 and 26.05.2013 on 30.9.2014. He, however, did not order payment of any interest. Aggrieved by the non sanction of refund in the said adjudication order, the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. Appellate Authority. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Akshit Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Authorized Representative for the respondent-department. 3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant stated that Section 18 and Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 (CA 1962) are independent to one another and operate in different fields. Reading Section 18 along with Section 27 ibid. is totally untenable. Sub-section 18(2)(a) clearly provides for suo moto refund to the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir final reply 5. 30.9.2014 PH conducted 6. 30.9.2014 Order in Original issued sanctioning the refund She stated that as per the time chart, which has not been contested by the appellant, the refund claim has been sanctioned within 3 months from date of receipt of the final reply from the appellant i.e. three months from the date of receipt of the complete claim / documents, thus there is no delay on the part of the department. As the claim was sanctioned within 03 months from the date of receipt of complete claim/documents, thus there is no delay on the part of the Department. Hence, the contention of the appellant is untenable. Section 18 of the CA 1962 merely entitles the appellant to get a refund if the duty finally determined is less than the duty paid provisionally. Moreover, the said section cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read with Section 27. The Ld. AR averred that section 18(2)(a) states that in the case of goods cleared for home consumption or exportation, the amount paid shall be adjusted against the duty finally assessed and if the amount so paid falls short of, or is in excess of the duty finally assessed, the importer or the exporter of the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice datyed 27.12.2013. The SCN highlighted the following issues; 4. The importer/claimant have, vide their letter dated 05-11- 2013, submitted indemnity bonds in lieu of all the original bills of entry and a Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 06-11-2013 on unjust enrichment. 5. According to Section 27(1A) of the Customs Act 1962, the refund application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 28(C)) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty or interest in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by him and the incidence of such duty or interest, has not been passed on by him to any other person. 6. The original importer copy of bills of entry (for evidencing the amount of duty payable) and the original duty paid challan (for evidencing the payment of duty) are mandatory and must be submitted along with the refund application. But, in the subject claims, the importer/claimant has failed to submit the original bills of entry and duty paid challans/receipts. Indemnity Bond is acceptable only in rare situations where original documents could not be fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned final order dated 20-9-2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "CESTAT"), South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru in No. 21384/2018. 2. This Court on 10-6-2019 has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : "(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT, 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 Act, 1962 when there is failure on part of the claimant in complying the above provisions i.e., failure in filing refund claim after finalization of assessment? (3) Whether, the CESTAT is justified in relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.? In the case on hand, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority was of the view that the requisite documents were submitted only on 11-10-2017 and the refund was sanctioned on 2-1-2018 which is well within the period of three months from the date of filing of the last document and therefore, respondent-importer is not entitled for interest on the refund. ***** ***** ***** 10. The respondent-importer is seeking refund with interest on the ground that the Department has failed to finalize the assessment immediately and therefore, are liable to pay interest in terms of Section 27A of the Act, 1962 for the delay in refund of EDD. On meticulous examination of the order passed by the Original Authority as per Annexure-C, we would find that respondent-importer had not produced all required documents and this compelled the Department to issue a show cause notice on 7-7-2017 notifying the importer that the claim of refund will be rejected for non-submission of the documents. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the importer has furnished 11 duplicate copies of bills of entries and four original copies of capital TR-6 challans. We would find that the importer has produced these documents duly certified by Chartered Accountant only on 11-10-2017. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments. 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 Section 27A of the Act, 1962 is too far stretched and we are unable to accede to such a contention. The respondent-importer cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of lapses on his part in not submitting complete document to enable the Revenue to finalize the assessment before ordering for refund of 1% EDD. All these significant details are not dealt by the Tribunal and therefore, the order dated 20-9-2018 passed by the Tribunal is illegal and the Tribunal has erred in holding that interest is payable on the said refund claim. 14. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated in the present appeal are answered in affirmative i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following : ORDER 16. The appeal is allowed. The impugned final order dated 20-9- 2018 passed by the CESTAT in No. 2....