9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund application on the grounds of time bar under Section 28 of the Customs Act. 2. Denial of concessional rate of duty under 'Project Imports Regulations' due to lack of registration under Project Imports (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965. Issue 1: Rejection of Refund Application on Time Bar: In this case, 31 appeals were filed by a PSU Unit, where the refund application was rejected as time-barred under Section 28 of the Customs Act due to processing beyond six months. The duty was not paid under protest, and assessments were not provisional. The delay ranged from 9 days to 1027 days. Issue 2: Denial of Concessional Rate of Duty under 'Project Imports Regulations': The second issue involved the appellant's prayer for the benefit of concessional duty rate under 'Project Imports Regulations,' which was denied because the Project imports were not registered under Project Imports (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965. The appellant argued that the delay in getting the Project Report signed should be condoned, citing procedural hurdles faced as a PSU Unit under the Ministry of Defence. Analysis: The Counsel for the appellant argued that the benefit of concessional duty rate should not be denied solely due to non-registration under the Regulations. Reference was made to the case law where procedural violations did not debar the assessee from claiming benefits. However, the Departmental Representative cited precedents where the benefit was denied if not registered prior to clearance of goods. The Tribunal, in the appellant's own case, established that registration of the contract was essential for the concessional assessment under the Customs Tariff Act. The Apex Court upheld this view in various cases, emphasizing the necessity of contract registration for the grant of benefits. The Counsel attempted to distinguish cited judgments, highlighting the unique circumstances of the appellant's case. However, the Tribunal found merit in the Department's submissions, reiterating the importance of contract registration as a prerequisite for concessional assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue was settled law, confirmed by the Apex Court in previous cases. Despite the appellant's argument regarding a letter from the Ministry of Defence, suggesting Customs Authorities could accept belated Project Reports, the Tribunal maintained that contract registration was indispensable for availing benefits under the Project Imports Regulations. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, emphasizing the established legal requirement of contract registration under the Project Imports Regulations for granting concessional duty rates. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Larger Bench and the Apex Court, affirming that the registration of the contract was a fundamental condition for availing benefits, dismissing the appellant's arguments based on unique circumstances and clarifications from the Ministry of Defence.
|
