9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is contended that the Customs Authorities are needlessly putting up baseless objections and withholding reimbursement of amounts, which are due to the petitioner. 2 The petitioner had earlier approached this Court complaining that the lease of its aircraft to Kingfisher Airlines - which led to the detention of some of the crafts (which in terms of the occasion of importation of an aircraft engine became the subject matter of controversy) by filing W.P.(C) No.2937/2013. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 11.02.2014; the Court had occasion to direct as follows: " This Court has considered the submissions. There appears to be no dispute about the basic fact at this stage that the rationale for bringing in the engine wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty and penalty. The petitioner was permitted to avail this facility by furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount in question i.e. Rs. 8 crores subject to a cash deposit of Rs. 1 crore. The Court also clarified by the later order (dated 28.07.2014) that in the event of adjudication, the demurrage paid by the petitioner to CELEBI would be refunded by the latter in terms of the policy of waiver etc. 4 The adjudication by the CESTAT of the petitioner's appeal resulted in the acceptance of its plea; the CESTAT allowed the appeal on 23.06.2017. The CESTAT upheld the denial of exemption, which implies that the petitioner was held liable for the payment of duty. However, it held that the confiscation of the engine and the penalty imposed was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 23.06.2017 CESTAT set aside the penalty which had been imposed by the Commissioner in the first instance. The Commissioner had held the petitioner liable to pay duty and had confiscated the goods; the option to redeem the articles by paying redemption fine too was provided. The petitioner conceded and took steps to re-export; but after availing the option of redeeming the goods with the setting aside of the penalty and the redemption fine, the petitioner clearly became entitled to the refund of the amount. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon a Circular No.802/35/2004-CX of 08.12.2004 which inter alia states as follows: 4. Accordingly, the contents of the Circular No.275/37/2000-CX.8A dated 02.01.2002, as to the modalities f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Record of deposits made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 should be maintained by the Commissionerate so as to facilitate seamless verification of the deposits at the time of processing the refund claims made in case of favourable order from the Appellate Authority." 7 It is, thus, clear that the objections by the Customs Authorities on one ground or the other, are not merited. The petitioner's right to a refund of the penalty amount deposited, accrued to it on 23.06.2017 when the CESTAT decided that the penalty and the redemption fine were unwarranted. Given these circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner is a foreign company - not subject to the laws of India nor having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
