9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1207 - AT - CustomsRefund - customs duty (CVD) was paid without claiming the benefit of exemption notification - Import of Indigo Vat Blue falling under CTH 3204 15 59 - Notification No. 12/2012-C.E - Held that - The judgment of Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. 2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA is in context of old Section 27 where the duty was to be paid in pursuance of the order of assessment. Moreover in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. 2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT the Hon ble Delhi High Court distinguishing the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue. The refund claim of the appellant was maintainable under Section 27 of the Customs Act and the non-filing of the appeal against the assessed bill of entry does not deprive the appellant to file its claim for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962 and which claim will fall under clause (ii) of sub section (1) of Section 27. The Customs duty was paid in excess under a self assessment of bill of entry and borne by the appellant for claiming of refund of excess paid duty the appellant was not required to challenge the assessment of bill of entry. The appellant is entitled for refund claim subject to the test of unjust enrichment. - Matter remanded back for verification of unjust enrichment - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-challenging of the assessment of Bills of Entry. 2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. 3. Unjust enrichment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-challenging of the Assessment of Bills of Entry: The primary issue was whether the appellant's refund claim was maintainable without challenging the assessment of the Bills of Entry. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) both held that the refund claim was not maintainable as the appellant had not challenged the assessment of the Bills of Entry. The appellant argued that since the assessment was self-assessed and there was no formal assessment order by a proper officer, there was no need to challenge the self-assessed Bills of Entry. The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 had changed. The old provision required that the refund be filed in pursuance of an order of assessment, which was subject to challenge. However, the new provision allows for a refund claim without the need to challenge the self-assessed Bills of Entry. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi, which clarified that a refund claim is maintainable if the duty was paid and borne by the assessee without an adversarial assessment order. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not required to challenge the assessment of the Bills of Entry to claim the refund. 2. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E.: The appellant claimed a refund of Customs duty paid on the import of Indigo Vat Blue, arguing that it was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E., dated 17-3-2012 (Serial No. 133). The adjudicating authority initially rejected this claim, stating that the dye was not covered under the said notification. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the exemption notification was applicable to the imported goods, as it covered "other products and preparations of any kind" used in the manufacture of textile and textile articles. This finding was not challenged by the Revenue, and thus, it attained finality. The Tribunal upheld this finding, confirming that the appellant was entitled to the exemption under the notification. 3. Unjust Enrichment: The issue of unjust enrichment was also considered. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant had not satisfactorily demonstrated that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to any other person. The appellant argued that the refund amount was shown as receivable in their balance sheet and certified by a Chartered Accountant, indicating that it was not passed on as an expense. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had submitted relevant documents, including the balance sheet, to establish that the refund amount was shown as receivable and not booked as expenses. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify this factual aspect and ascertain whether the incidence of the Customs duty paid had indeed not been passed on to any other person. The adjudicating authority was directed to provide the appellant with an opportunity for a personal hearing and to submit additional documents if necessary. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim, subject to the verification of unjust enrichment. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh order after proper verification of the documents submitted by the appellant. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, with instructions for the adjudicating authority to grant sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing and submission of additional documents.
|
