2009 (6) TMI 1009 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (A) on the grounds of time bar and the subsequent appeal by the respondent challenging this decision.

Issue 1: Refund Claim Rejection
The respondent imported components from M/s. Hitachi Koki India Ltd., Japan, and faced provisional assessments by the Special Valuation Branch, Chennai. After a series of orders and appeals, the Deputy Commissioner, SVB accepted the transaction values declared in the invoices for imported components. The respondent sought a refund of excess amount paid, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Refunds, ACC, citing time limitations. The Commissioner (A) set aside this rejection, emphasizing that the disputed amount was an extra duty deposit, not customs duty, and thus not subject to the time limit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (A) relied on previous tribunal decisions, including MICO v. CC, Chennai, to support the refund claim.

Issue 2: Tribunal Decision
The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and upheld the Commissioner (A)'s decision. It noted that the extra duty deposit in question was not equivalent to customs duty and should be refunded automatically after final assessment and cancellation of PD bonds. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of distinguishing between duty deposit and actual duty payable. It referenced the MICO case and a similar decision by the Chennai Bench in CC v. Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd. to support its ruling. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the respondent had requested the refund as early as 15.7.2004, well within the time limit, and that the facts of the present case differed significantly from the GMMCO Ltd. case cited by the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal and disposed of the respondent's Cross Objection in favor of upholding the refund claim.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision in response to the appeal.