Case Law Details

Case Name : Venkatesh Agencies, Falcon International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva [2015-TIOL-308-CESTAT-MUM]
Appeal Number :
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :

Revenue liable to refund pre-deposit retained for more than 2 years for no reason and without filing any appeal against the Order, is a clear case of harassment

In the instant case, the Hon’ble Tribunal vide Order No. A/153-155/2013-/C-IV dated January 7, 2013 (the Order), dropped the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act) on Venkatesh Agencies and Falcon International (the Appellants).

Thereafter, the Appellants filed application dated May 6, 2013 to the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Export), JNCH, Nhava Sheva under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for the implementation of the Order.

The Appellants submitted that since in terms of the Order, the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act was dropped, the Appellants are entitled for refund of pre-deposit amount of Rs. 1 lakh. But, even after two years, the amount was not refunded to the Appellants. Therefore, the Appellants preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that for no reason, the Revenue has retained the pre-deposit amount of the Appellants for more than 2 years after passing of the Order. Further, the Revenue neither filed an appeal against the Order nor obtained any stay, therefore, it is clear case of harassment to the Appellants that the legitimate claim of the Appellants has not been granted.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Export), JNCH, Mumbai to dispose of the claim of the Appellants within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of this Order.

(Bimal Jain, FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons), Mobile: +91 9810604563, Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com)

Read Other Articles from CA Bimal Jain

Author Bio

More Under Custom Duty

Posted Under

Category : Custom Duty (7035)
Type : Articles (17631)
Tags : CA Bimal Jain (695) Cestat judgments (936)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *