9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Refund of duties paid under protest for the period November 1999 to November 2000
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue involved is the refund of duties paid under protest for a specific period, which was denied by lower authorities for various reasons. The first reason cited was that BOPP film was not considered a plain film. Secondly, non-compliance with the procedures of 1996 Rules for end-use verification was mentioned. Thirdly, it was noted that on certain Bills of Entry, no appeal against the assessment order was filed by importers, invoking the bar of refund as per the Priya Blue decision. Lastly, the issue of unjust enrichment was highlighted as needing consideration. The appellants argued that an explanation added to Notification No. 25/99 on 1-3-2001 included BOPP films as eligible for the benefit of the notification under the term "plain plastic film." The Tribunal accepted this argument, stating that the amendment clarified the scope of the exemption retrospectively. It was noted that the subject films were always entitled to the notification's benefit, especially after the clarification by the Board was overruled by the legislative intent shown in the amendment of Notification No. 20/01-Cus., dated 1-3-2001. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order, remit the issue back to the original authority, and directed them to reconsider the refund applications, determine the refund amount, and pay it after hearing the appellants. To expedite the resolution of the matter, the Tribunal imposed a time-bound decision on the original authority, giving them 30 days from the receipt of the order in the Custom House to conclude the refund claims. It was emphasized that the appellants must be heard before a decision is made, and they should cooperate without seeking adjournments during the hearing dates. The appeal was disposed of as remand in the terms mentioned above, providing a clear direction for the further proceedings in the case.
|
