Case Law Details
Jindal Stainless Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Hyderabad)
Introduction: The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Hyderabad recently allowed a refund claim by Jindal Stainless Limited, originally rejected due to delays attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic. Jindal Stainless Limited had challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Guntur, arguing that the original authority and the first appellate authority passed orders with a revenue bias, ignoring the impact of the pandemic on filing timelines.
Analysis: The case hinged on the interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962, which permits a refund of customs duty or interest paid. The appellant’s legal counsel argued that a delay in filing the refund claim should not be applicable due to the Supreme Court’s suo motu order dated 10/01/2022, excluding the pandemic period from computing the prescribed period of limitation under various laws. The revenue authority’s stance was contradictory, claiming that the late fee did not qualify as customs duty or interest, thus refund of late fee is not covered by Section 27, while simultaneously arguing that the assessment could not be challenged without challenging the order of assessment.
The court ruled in favor of Jindal Stainless Limited, stating that the refund claim was a simple return of the amount paid by the appellant under a mistaken notion of law and thus was subject to general principles of restitution.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT HYDERABAD ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
