9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 657 - AT - CustomsRefund - Indigenous or imported goods - Since HPCL has paid custom and excise duty on same consignment - The original adjudicating authority after confirming that the provisional assessment has been finalized in respect of into bond bill of entry and goods warehoused as per the into bond bill of entry have been duly cleared by IOCL on payment of duty and therefore IOCL have accounted for the full quantity imported and after confirming that customs duty paid by HPCL was a second payment and was in respect of quantity which was not received by them, sanctioned the refund claim - In this case it is not the contention of the appellant that there was anything wrong with the calculation of duty on the ground of either valuation or classification or applicability of exemption - Held that original adjudicating authority before allowing the refund has ensured that the quantity of HSD imported and warehoused by IOCL had been fully accounted for by filing ex-bond bills of entries and payment of duty and provisional assessment had also been finalized before sanctioning the refund - Decided in favor of the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim for customs duty paid on indigenous goods. 2. Requirement of challenging the assessment of the bill of entry for refund eligibility. 3. Application of the Priya Blue Industries Supreme Court decision. 4. Procedural compliance and submission of necessary documents. 5. Concept of "unjust enrichment" in refund claims. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund Claim for Customs Duty Paid on Indigenous Goods: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) sold 1,995.932 MT of HSD to HPCL, which paid customs duty of Rs. 78,16,301/-. Later, it was found that the HSD was of indigenous origin, leading HPCL to file a fresh D-3 declaration and pay central excise duty of Rs. 24,01,593/-. HPCL then sought a refund for the customs duty paid, as it had paid duty twice on the same consignment. 2. Requirement of Challenging the Assessment of the Bill of Entry for Refund Eligibility:The department argued that the refund claim should be rejected because HPCL did not challenge the assessment of the bill of entry, citing the Supreme Court decision in Priya Blue Industries. However, the Tribunal found this inapplicable as HPCL's refund claim was based on the fact that duty was paid twice, not on the assessment itself. The Tribunal noted that the assessment should be challenged only when there is a dispute regarding the rate of duty, valuation, etc. 3. Application of the Priya Blue Industries Supreme Court Decision:The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Priya Blue Industries, where the refund claim was based on a wrong levy of duty without challenging the bill of entry. Here, HPCL's claim was due to a double payment of duty on the same consignment. The Tribunal emphasized that the reassessment provisions under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, were applicable, as the goods were reassessed to be of indigenous origin after the initial assessment. 4. Procedural Compliance and Submission of Necessary Documents:Initially, HPCL's refund claim was rejected due to a lack of necessary documents. Upon remand, HPCL submitted all required documents, including the into-bond and ex-bond bills of entry, AR-3A forms, and a Chartered Accountant certificate. The original adjudicating authority verified that the provisional assessment was finalized and confirmed that the customs duty paid by HPCL was a second payment, thus sanctioning the refund claim. 5. Concept of "Unjust Enrichment" in Refund Claims:The Tribunal noted that HPCL had provided sufficient evidence to show that the burden of duty had not been passed on to customers, addressing the "unjust enrichment" clause. The original adjudicating authority had ensured that all necessary documents were submitted to confirm this. Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was valid as the customs duty was paid on goods that were later reassessed as indigenous. The procedural requirement of challenging the bill of entry was deemed unnecessary in this context. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to HPCL. Pronouncement:(Pronounced in Court)
|
