Commissioner of Customs vs Varsha Poly Products Pvt. Ltd.

K.A. Puj, J.—The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, has filed this Tax Appeal u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, proposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law for determination and consideration of this Court:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding 30-10-2000 as relevant date for sanctioning refund u/s 27(2) instead of 30-4-2002 which the CESTAT allowed in the appeal of M/s. Varsha Poly Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai?

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT is justified in considering the refund as delayed refund and is legally justified to allow the interest from 30-10-2000 to 30-7-2002 to M/s. Varsha Poly Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai u/s 27(A) of the Customs Act, 1962?

Heard Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the orders passed by the CESTAT.

The short question involved in this appeal is from which date the respondent assessee is entitled to interest. The Tribunal has considered this aspect after taking into account all relevant facts and information available on record. After considering the provisions contained in Section 27(2) as well as Section 27-A of the Customs Act, the Tribunal has observed that the date of filing of the refund claim is not really relevant, but what is relevant is the provisions of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

According to Section 27-A read with the Explanation thereto, an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has to be treated as an order u/s 27(2) of the Customs Act.

In view of this clear legal position, u/s 27A and u/s 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, interest becomes payable from 3 months from the date of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which results in the refund. There is no dispute about the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals)''s order has specifically provided for finalisation of provisional assessment and also directed that refund of deposit made by the parties at the time of provisional assessment should be given forthwith. The interest is therefore payable under the provisions of the Customs Act contained in Section 27(2) and Section 27-A with Explanation. The adjustment of refund has no relevance especially when the demand against which the refund was adjusted has ultimately been quashed and set aside by the Tribunal.

We, therefore, do not see any justification to interfere with the order passed by the CESTAT, and even otherwise, no substantial question of law can be said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal.

We, therefore, summarily dismiss this appeal.