2025 (5) TMI 1466 - HC - Customs

Delay in finalization of Provisional Assessment - Jurisdiction and power of tribunal to grant compensatory interest on excess customs duty retained by the Department for an extended period - Benefit of Notification No. 75/2003- Customs (N.T.) - exercise of power under Section 151A of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - Admittedly the order of the Appellate Authority was assailed before the Tribunal and it admits of no ambiguity that the moment the Tribunal exercises the jurisdiction it can take note of the mandates of law and may award the compensatory interest. It is inconceivable that the authority sat over the issue for considerable period of time despite paragraph-3.1 of the CBIC instructions and unreasonably taking advantage of the nuances of the law that the provision mandates the payment within three months from the date of the order despite such order is passed after fourteen years from the date of an approach having made in this regard. The Court cannot remain a mute spectator and may extend the substantial justice after balancing the technical objections. If the substantial justice is pitted against the technical objections or of such nature the former must prevail. We do not find any fetter on the imposition of any interest for the delayed payment under Section 27A of the said Act nor we find any fetter on the part of the Tribunal before whom the order of the appellate authority is assailed to pass such order. The hierarchical system of the adjudication provided in the statute does not create any brindle into the exercise of the power so conferred and the higher forum is not denuded of power to take a decision whether the decision of the authority below can withstand on the parameters of the law. We do not find any obstacle in activating the provisions of the statute conferring power upon the authorities to impose interest and the moment the authorities have exercised such power it does not raise any question of law. Even a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s. Bihar Foundry Castings Ltd. vs. Union of India 2024 (3) TMI 371 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT has interpreted that the delayed disposal of the matter despite the mandate given in the said manual of instruction having a statutory favour cannot be subverted taking aid of the technical rules which we find cannot stand on the way of the Tribunal in deciding the same. However we appreciate the contention of the appellant on the Notification dated 12th September 2003 where for the purpose of Section 27A of the Customs Act the Central Government has fixed the rate of an interest at the rate of 6% per annum. We therefore find force on the submission of the appellant in this regard. The order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of an interest at the rate of 12% per annum the same shall be paid at the rate of 6% per annum from the date stated therein. Thus the Tax Appeal stands disposed of.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

- Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has the jurisdiction and power to grant compensatory interest on excess customs duty retained by the Department for an extended period, beyond the statutory timelines.

- Whether the Tribunal's order granting interest at 12% per annum from the date of provisional assessment is legally sustainable, particularly in light of statutory provisions prescribing interest payment under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962.

- Whether the Department's unexplained delay of approximately fourteen years in adjudicating the refund claim and releasing the excess customs duty payment justifies the imposition of interest on the delayed refund.

- The applicability and effect of the Notification fixing interest at 6% per annum for the purpose of Section 27A of the Customs Act, and whether the Tribunal could award interest at a higher rate.

- The legal effect of procedural instructions and manuals issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), especially the time limits prescribed for finalization of provisional assessments, and their bearing on the entitlement to interest.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to grant compensatory interest on delayed refund

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal's jurisdiction arises under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 27A of the Act governs the payment of interest on delayed refunds, specifying interest from the date of application for refund or from the date of order by the appellate authority. The Department contended that the Tribunal is "denuded" of power to grant compensatory interest beyond these provisions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the hierarchical adjudicatory system under the statute does not restrict the Tribunal from considering the delay and awarding compensatory interest. The Tribunal can exercise jurisdiction to ensure substantial justice, balancing technical objections against the need to prevent unjust enrichment by the Department retaining excess duty for over a decade.

The Court referred to the CBIC Manual of Instructions issued under Section 151A of the Customs Act, which mandates expeditious finalization of provisional assessments, generally within six months. The Court emphasized that unreasonable delay in finalizing assessments and refund claims cannot be shielded by technicalities.

Key evidence and findings: The respondent paid customs duty provisionally, and after fourteen years of delay, the Department accepted the excess payment and refunded the amount. The delay was unexplained and inordinate.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that the Tribunal's power to award interest is not fettered by the Department's technical compliance with statutory timelines for payment once the refund order is passed. The delay in adjudication justifies compensatory interest to prevent unjust enrichment.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that interest payment is governed strictly by Section 27A and the Tribunal cannot exceed these limits. The Court rejected this narrow interpretation, holding that the Tribunal can impose interest to compensate for delay beyond the statutory period.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to grant compensatory interest on the excess duty retained for an unreasonable period.

Issue 2: Rate of interest payable on delayed refund

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Department relied on Notification No. 75/2003-Customs (N.T.) dated 12th September 2003, fixing the interest rate at 6% per annum for the purposes of Section 27A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal awarded interest at 12% per annum.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: While affirming the Tribunal's power to award interest, the Court agreed with the Department that the rate prescribed by the Central Government notification must be adhered to. The Court modified the Tribunal's order to reduce the interest rate from 12% to 6% per annum, aligning with the statutory notification.

Key evidence and findings: The notification fixing 6% interest was issued by the Ministry of Finance and is binding for interest calculations under Section 27A.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the statutory interest rate to the facts and adjusted the Tribunal's order accordingly.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent did not dispute the applicability of the notification but sought higher interest due to delay. The Court balanced the entitlement to interest with the statutory rate fixed by the government.

Conclusion: Interest is payable at 6% per annum, not 12%, from the date specified by the Tribunal.

Issue 3: Effect of CBIC instructions and precedents on finalization of provisional assessment and interest entitlement

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The CBIC Manual of Instructions under Section 151A prescribes that provisional assessments should be finalized expeditiously, preferably within six months. Several High Court decisions were cited, including the Jharkhand High Court's ruling in a similar case where a delay of ten years was held unreasonable, and the Punjab & Haryana and Gujarat High Courts' judgments quashing finalizations delayed by 8-9 years.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that while these instructions are not statutory provisions, they carry statutory flavor and reflect the intent of timely adjudication. The Court held that non-adherence to these instructions cannot be ignored and justifies imposition of interest for delay.

Key evidence and findings: The delay in the present case was approximately fourteen years, far exceeding the six-month guideline. The Department failed to provide any justification for this inordinate delay.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles from the cited precedents and CBIC instructions to hold that the delay was unreasonable and warranted interest payment.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that the statutory period for payment of refund was complied with once the refund was paid after the adjudication, relying on technical timelines. The Court rejected this, emphasizing the need to prevent unjust enrichment and the importance of timely adjudication.

Conclusion: The delay contravened CBIC instructions and relevant judicial precedents, justifying interest on delayed refund.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "We do not find any fetter on the imposition of any interest for the delayed payment under Section 27A of the said Act nor we find any fetter on the part of the Tribunal, before whom the order of the appellate authority is assailed, to pass such order."

- "The Court cannot remain a mute spectator and may extend the substantial justice after balancing the technical objections. If the substantial justice is pitted against the technical objections or of such nature, the former must prevail."

- "The hierarchical system of the adjudication provided in the statute does not create any brindle into the exercise of the power so conferred and the higher forum is not denuded of power to take a decision, whether the decision of the authority below can withstand on the parameters of the law."

- The Tribunal's order awarding interest at 12% per annum is modified to 6% per annum, in accordance with the Central Government Notification dated 12th September 2003.

- The CBIC instructions mandating finalization of provisional assessments within six months carry statutory flavor and non-compliance with such timelines justifies imposition of interest on delayed refunds.

- The Department's unexplained delay of fourteen years in adjudicating the refund claim and releasing excess duty payment warrants payment of interest to the claimant to prevent unjust enrichment.