9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Duty of customs paid including CVD on imported goods. 2. Refund claim filed due to goods being chargeable to CVD at 'nil' rate. 3. Appeal by Revenue against refund allowed by Assistant Commissioner. 4. Legal validity of refund and recovery process under Section 28 of the Customs Act. Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the payment of duty of customs, including CVD, by the appellants upon importing wooden match splints. Subsequently, a refund claim was filed as it was discovered that the goods were chargeable to CVD at a 'nil' rate at the time of import. The Assistant Commissioner approved the refund, finding no unjust enrichment by the claimant, leading to an appeal by the Revenue. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that they had already received the refund as per the Assistant Commissioner's order and raised concerns about potential enforcement of the appellate Commissioner's order for recovery. The Counsel highlighted the absence of a show-cause notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act for recovering the refunded amount, emphasizing the legal procedure. 3. Upon reviewing the submissions, the judge acknowledged the validity of the counsel's argument that the goods were not subject to CVD and noted that the Revenue did not utilize Section 28 of the Customs Act for recovering the amount due to an erroneous refund. Consequently, the judge deemed it appropriate to stay the recovery process, ordering the same for M/s. Standard Watch Industries (P) Ltd. as well, ensuring consistency in the decision-making process and legal application. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the intricacies of duty payment, refund claims, and the procedural aspects of recovery under the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal protocols and ensuring fairness in the resolution of customs-related disputes.
|
