Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Goyal Impex & Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), Chennai on 28 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal Nos. C/40308/2014, C/40309/2014, C/40311/2014, C/40312/2014 and C/40314/2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No.1577/2013 dated 11.11.2013; No.1588/2013 dated 12.11.2013; No. 1589/2013 dated 12.11.2013; No.1590/2013 dated 12.11.2013 and No. 1578/2014 dated 11.11.2013 all passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Goyal Impex & Industries Ltd.
M/s. Diamond Mink Blankets Ltd.
M/s. Amit International
M/s. HLG Trading
M/s. Diamond Mink Blankets Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Sea), Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri C. Ramkumar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 28.03.2016 Final Order No. 40526-40530 / 2016 It is precise submission of the learned counsel that whenever there is a delay in refund in additional duty of customs, such delay is to be compensated with interest as is envisaged by law even though the notification granting such refund has not made provision expressly in that regard. To say so he relies on the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Custom Vs. Riso India Pvt. Ltd. 2015-TIOL-2384-HC-DEL.
2. Appellant also submitted a chart showing the description of 27 Bills of Entry and the date of arise of the claim as well as delay made to entertain the claim. So also he has tabulated the interest amount admissible against each delayed refund.
3. On the above premise, it is prayer of the appellant that the delayed refund of additional duty of customs should be followed by interest as has been laid down by the Honble High Court of Delhi as also by the Honble High Court of Madras in the case of K.S.J. Metal Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Under Secretary (Cus.) M.F. (DR) 2013 (294) ELT 211 (Mad.)
4. Revenue on the other hand says that in absence of any express provision in the notification no interest shall be admissible to the appellant.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. It is an accepted principle of law that when a notification is issued by the Govt. that is laid before the Parliament and becomes part of the legislation itself. Therefore, the notification flowing from the law gets its colour as legislation. This is the principle that has been laid down by Honble High Court of Delhi in para 12 of its judgment which is reproduced as under for convenience of reading:-
12. As a result, the provisions of the Act in so far as they relate refund of duty and interest payable on the refunded amount of duty in the event of delay in refund, as provided by Sections 27 and 27A of the Act would apply to refund of SAD levied under Section3 of the CTA as well
7. When the law is well settled by both the High Courts in the aforesaid judgments, it is redundant to make further exercise and to hold otherwise. However, the learned AR having no materials in his hand to examine whether there was a delay or not, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the delay chart filed by the appellant and going through the judgment of Honble High Court Delhi as well as Honble High Court of Madras shall pass appropriate order. It is needless to mention that the appellant is entitled to reasonable opportunity of being heard.
8. In the result, all the five appeals are disposed in the manner indicated above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2