TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012 under RMS and paid Customs Duty with interest towards delayed payment of duty. In the meantime, objections were made regarding compliance of Animal Quarantine & Certification Services (AQCS) since the goods are made from duck feathers. Thereafter, Regional Office, AQCS issued a communication stating that the goods imported by the appellant did not comply with quarantine clearance and directed for destruction /deportation of the goods. Accordingly, appellant requested the Customs Department to destroy the goods and refund the entire amount. Thereafter, Adjudication Authority as per the Order-in-Original dated 22.06.2022 held that the goods are liable for confiscation, imposed penalty allowed to redeem the goods for reexport or destructio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1962. In appellant's case the refund application under Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable. The entire refund was against the duty which was paid prior to clearance of the goods and it is considered only in the nature of deposit and it did not partake the character of "duty" as per law. Hence, the impugned order is untenable in rejecting the refund. 4. From the above fact-narrative, it is clear that admittedly "no order for clearance for home consumption" as envisaged in section 47(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was passed. In other words, "no out-of-charge" order was passed under section 47(1). Therefore, the "taxable event" of import as envisaged in section 12(1) of the Act did not take place at all. It is well set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of duty or assessment of duty, the amount paid by the Appellant on 22.09.2021 remains only a deposit /payment of amount and the revenue is duty bound to refund this amount. The impugned order is therefore contrary to section 12(1) read with section 47(1) and is also violative of Article 265 of the Constitution. The impugned order is therefore bereft of legality. Learned Counsel further submits that in the light of the above facts and circumstances, the Revenue should have refunded the entire amount deposited by the Appellant suo moto and there was no need for filing refund claim under section 26A or section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as said refund provisions is applicable only if any duty was paid /payable as per law. 6. Lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground as well, no duty was payable on the destroyed goods. The impugned order has not appreciated this aspect as well. 8. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned order has allowed Revenue's appeal by invoking 3rd Proviso below section 26A(1) and set aside the refund order. It is the case of the Appellant they have not filed refund application under section 26A at all. The Appellant's refund claim was specifically under section 27(1)(b). Hence, though the amount paid by the Appellant was only a "deposit" and is not a "duty" and the said amount paid was refundable in any case to the Appellant, for the pleas urged in the foregoing paragraphs, both the lower authorities have wrongly invoked section 26A to the detriment of the Appe....