STEEL COMPLEX LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the OIA No. 114/2004 dated 13 -10 -2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.

(2.) THE appellants filed a remission of duty claim under Section 23 of the Customs Act 1962 and consequently refund of duty paid in excess for the year 1993. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Collectors order. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim in its order dated 9 -4 -1999. The refund was granted on 10 -1 -2001 after adjusting a pending confirmed demand. The appellants claimed interest on delayed refund of Customs duty. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, in his letter dated 13 -12 -2001, declined the grant of interest. There was correspondence with the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore on the issue. The Commissioner informed the appellants in his letter dated 25 -6 -2002 that the appellant is not entitled for the interest. The appellants approached the CESTAT. The CESTAT held that the appellant should have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) over the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Customs). It was held that the appeal was not maintainable before them. Thereupon, the appellant approached the High Court. The High Court granted liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) in his letter dated 13 -12 -2001 within a month from the date of the High Courts order. The Commissioner (Appeals) was also directed to entertain the appeal and to pass an appropriate order. Consequent to the High Courts order, the appeal has been filed and the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) in his letter dated 13 -12 -2001 and rejected the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the Commissioner of Customs, in his letter dated 25 -6 -2002, in response to the Assistant Commissioners letter dated 9 -6 -2002 has clearly mentioned that for granting refund consequent on the CEGATs order, the Original/Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry was essential and since they were submitting it only on 15 -11 -2000 and Modvat details on 10 -1 -2001, the refund was granted on 10 -1 -2001. The appellants had not produced any document or evidence to prove that these documents were submitted before 10 -1 -2001. In view of these circumstances, it was held that no interest is payable. The appellants challenge the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) SHRI A.K.J. Nambiar, the learned advocate, appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. The learned Advocate urged the following points : -