Kerala High Court
Cap Seafoods (P) Ltd vs Union Of India on 13 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4072 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
CAP SEAFOODS (P) LTD,
1/71, Vypeen Islands, Kochi - 682 510
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ARAVIND BABU
SHRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN
SMT.LEKSHMI P. NAIR
SHRI.REMIL REGI GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN, PIN - 682009
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
SRI.R.HARISHANKAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2026, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13609
WP(C) No.4072 of 2023
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and is an exporter of marine products such as shrimps, prawns, cuttle fish, octopus, etc. While effecting export as above, Cess under the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was collected from the petitioner by the respondents herein. The petitioner had a case that it had no liability to satisfy the Cess under the Act since, under the statute, the Cess could be demanded only with reference to 'fish' and the commodities dealt with by the petitioner were not fish. Therefore, the petitioner took up the matter before the Appellate Authority.
2. The Appellate Authority decided the matter in favour of the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P1 to P4. By these orders, the Appellate Authority found that the issue required to be considered in detail and therefore ordered a remand. After the remand, fresh assessments were completed, which were not in favour of the petitioner, and hence fresh appeals were preferred. By Ext.P5 order dated 31.3.2008, the appeal was allowed holding that the Cess could not be collected.
2026:KER:13609 WP(C) No.4072 of 2023 3 Therefore, by virtue of the order at Ext.P5, the payments made by the petitioner towards Cess became refundable to it.
3. However, the petitioner filed an application for refund as evidenced by the letter at Ext.P9 dated 08.02.2017. The application as above was processed by the order at Ext.P11 dated 01.11.2017, finding that the refund claim was made with reference to the judgment of this Court confirming the appellate order allowing the case of another exporter and not with respect to the petitioner herein. Apart from the aforesaid finding, Ext.P11 further states that the shipping bills concerned were not produced and, for that reason also, the refund could not be effected. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court through the captioned writ petition seeking refund as well as interest.
4. Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the consideration of the refund application pursuant to Ext.P11 was with reference to the letter seeking refund at Ext.P9. According to him, the petitioner had filed Ext.P17 application as early as on 05.04.2007 and therefore the claim for refund ought to have 2026:KER:13609 WP(C) No.4072 of 2023 4 been ordered to be paid with reference to Ext.P17, and interest also ought to have been considered after granting refund with reference to Ext.P17. He would also point out that the shipping bills etc. have been produced as evidenced by Ext.P18, except for the originals of five invoices. A perusal of Ext.P18 would show that the originals of the invoices, except the five invoices referred to therein, as well as photocopies of the shipping bills, were produced before the assessing authority.
5. Sri. R. Harishankar, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, would contend that the question of granting interest does not arise insofar as the refund application itself has been rejected. He would also point out that the refund came to be rejected for want of appropriate documents.
6. I have considered the rival contentions and the connected records. As regards the refund, this Court notices that the application for refund stood rejected essentially for two reasons as noticed earlier. As regards the first reason that the petitioner did not file the refund application along with the 2026:KER:13609 WP(C) No.4072 of 2023 5 judgment of this Court in its own case, I am of the opinion that insofar as Ext.P5 appellate order has already been issued in its favour, there was no requirement for any refund claim with reference to the findings in the judgment of this Court. The refund ought to have been considered with reference to the findings in the appellate order in the petitioner's own case. Therefore, the finding to that effect in Ext.P11 is set aside.
7. At the same time, this Court notices that in paragraph 12 of Ext.P11, it is found that the petitioner had not produced any shipping bills. This finding in Ext.P11 requires reconsideration in the light of the communication at Ext.P17 as also the details of the documents at Ext.P18. So as to facilitate the above, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be remitted to the 3rd respondent herein.
Therefore, Ext.P11 shall stand set aside. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the matter afresh. The petitioner shall file a supplementary claim with reference to the documents produced before this Court along with the reply affidavit filed on 06.12.2024 within a period of three weeks from today. If such an application is filed, the 3 rd 2026:KER:13609 WP(C) No.4072 of 2023 6 respondent shall consider the petitioner's refund claim afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the eligibility for interest as regards the petitioner is not adjudicated in this matter and the same shall also be adjudicated by the 3rd respondent.
Sd/-
sab HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
2026:KER:13609
WP(C) No.4072 of 2023
7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 4072 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2006 PASSED
IN APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2006.
Exhibit P 2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.10.2006 IN APPEALS
249-298 OF 2006.
Exhibit P 3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.02.2007 IN APPEALS
NOS. 83-132 OF 2007.
Exhibit P 4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.03.2007 IN APPEALS
NOS. 141-190.
Exhibit P 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2008 IN
APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2008.
Exhibit P 6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED
11.08.2008 FILED BEFORE THE CESTAT.
Exhibit P 7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.05.2016 IN
CUS. APPEAL 32 OF 2009 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P 8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2022 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 3047-3083 Exhibit P 9 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 08.02.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P 10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO. S18/A/12//2017 R. CUS. DATED 09.03.2017.
Exhibit P 11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL F.NO. S 18/A/12/2017/ R. CUS DATED 30.10.2017 . Exhibit P 12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO.
100/2017 DATED 24.01.2017.
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FULL VERSION OF ORDER-IN-
APPEAL NO.129/2008 DATED 31.03.2008 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEAL) IN CASE OF ABAD FISHERIES Exhibit P14 True copy of Order-in-Appeal No. 169 of 2006 dated 31.05.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Exhibit P15 True Copy of Orders Nos. 153 to 156 of 2007 dated 16.01.2007 rejected by the Honble CESTAT Exhibit P16 True Copy of the Notice F. No. S 32A/ 09/07- Gr-7-Cus dated 20.03.2007 Exhibit P17 True Copy of the written submissions dated 05.04.2007 submitted during the Hearing held on 05.04.2007 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(a) True copy of reminder letter dated 25-04-2017 issued by department to petitioner 2026:KER:13609 WP(C) No.4072 of 2023 8 Exhibit R3(b) True copy of show cause notice dated 24-05- 2017 issued by department to petitioner Exhibit R3(c) True copy letter dated 23-05-2017 to the Appraising Officer (Refunds), Office of Commissioner of Customs Exhibit R3(d) True copy of letter dated 31-05-2017 issued by department to petitioner intimating personal hearing Exhibit R3(e) True copy of letter dated 21-06-2017 issued by department to petitioner intimating personal hearing Exhibit R3(f) True copy of letter dated 17-07-2017 issued by Adv. Lekshmi Varma T.P. to department Exhibit R3(g) True copy of letter dated 26-07-2017 issued by department to petitioner for personal hearing Exhibit R3(h) True copy of record of personal hearing dated 09-08-2017 Exhibit R3(i) True copy of letter dated 18-09-2017 issued by department to petitioner for personal hearing Exhibit R3(j) True copy of letter dated 13-09-2017 issued by petitioner to department Exhibit R3(k) True copy of letter dated 19-10-2017 issued by petitioner to department Exhibit R3(l) True copy of record of personal hearing dated 19-10-2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P 18 A true copy of the list of Shipping Bills and other original documents that were handed over to the Revenue Authority during the personal hearing on 05.04.2007