Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Customs (Sea) vs The Customs on 3 February, 2021
R.C.No.3 of 2008
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 03.02.2021
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Referred Case No.3 of 2008
Commissioner of Customs (Sea)
Chennai ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Customs, Excise & Gold
(Control) Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
2.M/s.Nice Foto Lab ...Respondents
REFERRED CASE under Section 130A(4) of the Customs Act, 1962
against Final Order No.69/2002 dated 23.01.2002 on the file of the
Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal
Bench, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, SSC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R.C.No.3 of 2008
Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
We have heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the petitioner.
2.This referred case by the Revenue challenges the order passed by
the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which decided the
issue in favour of the assessee.
3.The referred case was filed by the Revenue by raising the following
substantial questions of law :
“1.Whether the Tribunal is correct in deciding that
the refund claim is not time barred?
2.Whether the 2nd respondents party's claim that
their filing of refund application arises only when
Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) passed an order-in-
appeal in favour of them is correct?
3.Whether it is correct to say that when there is no
Court Order/Injunction/Stay and when the party did not
protest at the time of payment of duty, the refund
application is not time barred?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R.C.No.3 of 2008
4.The statement of cast under Section 130A(4) of the Customs Act,
1962 has been placed before the Court. The issue is with regard to the
refund claim of Rs.94,155/-.
5.Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the
revenue would submit that though the amount of refund is less than Rs.1
lakh. He would further submit that since it is a refund issue and if it is a
recurring matter, then the case will not be covered under the Monetary
Policy.
6.In order to examine as to whether the issue involved is a recurring
issue, we have carefully gone through the order-in-original dated
24.10.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, the
order-in-appeal dated 09.04.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals), Chennai and the order of the Tribunal dated 23.01.2002. It could
be seen that the assessee had imported a used Konica Nice Print System
with standard accessories and the import appears to be for personal use of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R.C.No.3 of 2008
the importer. Therefore, the facts clearly show that the issue is not a
recurrent issue and therefore, the case would be covered by the monetary
policy issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
5.Accordingly, the referred case is dismissed on the ground of low tax
effect and the substantial questions of law raised are left open.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
03.02.2021
cse
To
The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R.C.No.3 of 2008
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
cse
R.C.No.3 of 2008
03.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
