9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Duty payment on Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG), clearance delay, reassessment, refund claim, applicability of Supreme Court decision.
Duty Payment and Clearance Delay: The appellants paid duty on 200 MTs of MEG but could only clear 80.135 MTs before a certain date. After a budget increase in customs duty, the department demanded reassessment and the goods were cleared upon payment of differential duty with interest. The appellant also filed a refund claim, leading to a dispute. Reassessment and Refund Claim: The appellant argued that the delay in clearing the balance quantity was due to the department's refusal to allow movement and the subsequent demand for higher duty rates post-budget. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the appellant contended that once an out of charge order is given, goods cannot be considered warehoused. The Revenue, however, argued that the Supreme Court decision was not directly applicable as it involved a different scenario under Section 49 of the Customs Act. Applicability of Supreme Court Decision: The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that once duty is paid and goods are cleared, they cease to be warehoused goods. The application under Section 49 was deemed a procedural formality. The Tribunal also considered a hypothetical scenario posed by the Revenue regarding paying higher duty rates, concluding that the department would be justified in demanding the same. Conclusion: Based on the analysis of the Supreme Court decision and the arguments presented, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief. *(Pronounced in Court)*
|
