2005 (3) TMI 676 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for refund of CVD on imported raw asbestos fiber
- Applicability of Countervailing Duty on goods imported prior to 1986
- Legality of duty collection by the Department
- Refund of duty paid under protest
- Interpretation of Supreme Court directive on refund of additional duty

Analysis:
The appellant's claim for the refund of Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid on imported raw asbestos fiber was rejected by the Original Authority and upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, based on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a relevant case. The appellant challenged this decision before the Appellate Tribunal for relief. The appellant argued that the CVD was not payable on asbestos fiber imported prior to 1986 as these goods were not subject to Central Excise duty. The Department allegedly collected duty illegally despite a stay order from the Supreme Court and the existence of Bank Guarantees. The appellant contended that the duty was paid under protest, and thus, should be refunded, citing a Supreme Court decision in a similar case.

The Revenue, represented by the learned SDR, referred to the Supreme Court's order in the appellant's case, stating that the additional duty already paid did not require a refund. The Tribunal examined the contentions of both parties. It was noted that the Supreme Court had granted a stay order in 1980, which was vacated in 1983. The Revenue demanded duty in 1984, and the appellant deposited the amount in 1985 and 1986, following the vacation of the stay. The Tribunal concluded that the duty was paid only after the stay was lifted, contrary to the appellant's claim of paying duty while the stay was in effect. Citing the Supreme Court's directive that the additional duty already paid need not be refunded, the Original Authority rejected the refund claim, a decision upheld by the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appellant's appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision was based on the timeline of duty payment vis-a-vis the Supreme Court's stay order, concluding that the duty was paid post the stay vacation and in compliance with the interim order. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, citing the Supreme Court's directive on the non-refundability of additional duty already paid in similar circumstances.