- within Corporate/Commercial Law and Transport topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy and Law Firm industries
CESTAT New Delhi has held that Sections 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 would not be applicable in the case of refund of amount deposited by the assessee on the directions of the Supreme Court.
Perusing the interim order of the Apex Court, allowing such deposits on the request of the assessee, the Tribunal in Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner observed that the assessee was not required to file any application under Section 27 for refund of the amount and interest, and was only required to inform the Department that the Civil Appeal has been allowed in favour of the assessee.
Allowing interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount by the assessee pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court till the date of payment, the Tribunal observed the following:
- Condition of the interim order must be examined and not whether it was passed in a writ petition or in a civil appeal.
- Section 27 not applicable just because the assessee used the phrase ‘differential duty’ in its letter to the Department and also filed refund application in Annexure A.
- Amount deposited pursuant to interim order was not ‘duty’.
- Supreme Court’ direction that the amount will be refunded with ‘applicable interest’ cannot be interpreted to mean that the assessee entitled to interest, if applicable.
- No case of Department that interest @ 6% was not the applicable rate of interest.
Supreme Court’s decisions in the cases of Tata Refractories Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer; Commissioner v. Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Ltd.; and Daily Thanthi v. Commissioner, were relied upon.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]