9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 416 - AT - CustomsRefund rejected as time barred under 27(1)(b) of the customs Act 1962 - the ground for refund as Appellant have already completed the export obligations against its aforesaid advance licenses and all relevant documents inclusive EODC submitted with Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Refund - Held that - After going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) as also the appeal filed by the revenue the appellant authority has relied upon Tribunal decisions Grasim Industries Ltd 2005 (6) TMI 131 - CESTAT, MUMBAI & Aristo Spinners Pvt. Ltd 2007 (3) TMI 18 - CESTAT, CHENNAI laying down that such an Encashemnet of bank guarantee, which was not against any confirmed demand was not justified. Further such Enchashem by the Revenue was on account of non-fulfillment of export obligation. The export obligation having been subsequently fulfilled, the refund of amount so encashed is available to the assessee and the same is not subject to the provisions of limitation under section 27 of the Customs Act. The Revenue has not shown any decision to the contrary. As such in terms of the declaration of law by the Tribunal, Revenue s contention is not justified. Their appeal is accordingly rejected.
Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of refund claims as time-barred under Customs Act 1962. 2. Interpretation of bank guarantee enforcement in case of non-fulfillment of export obligation. 3. Consideration of Tribunal decisions on encashment of bank guarantees without confirmed demand. Issue 1: The appellant filed refund claims with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Refund, on the grounds that they had completed the export obligations against their advance licenses. However, the refund claims were rejected as time-barred under section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1962. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claims, noting that the appellant had obtained a discharge certificate from the DGFT, indicating fulfillment of export obligations. The Commissioner relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support the refund claims, emphasizing that encashment of bank guarantees without a confirmed demand does not justify the Revenue's action. Issue 2: The case involved the interpretation of bank guarantee enforcement in the context of non-fulfillment of export obligations. The appellant had imported goods against specific licenses with export obligations, failing to fulfill them within the stipulated time. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs enforced the bank guarantees submitted by the appellant. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the export obligations were subsequently met, and the appellant had obtained a discharge certificate from the DGFT. Citing Tribunal decisions, the Commissioner held that encashment of bank guarantees due to delayed discharge certificates does not amount to duty payment, warranting a refund of the encashed amount. Issue 3: The Tribunal considered previous decisions regarding the encashment of bank guarantees without a confirmed demand. Relying on established legal principles, the Tribunal reiterated that encashment of bank guarantees solely due to non-fulfillment of export obligations, without a confirmed demand, does not align with the provisions of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that once the export obligations are fulfilled, the encashed amount should be refunded to the importer, irrespective of the delay in submitting discharge certificates. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to allow the refund claims based on the legal interpretation of bank guarantee enforcement in such circumstances. By analyzing the judgment, it is evident that the case revolved around the timely fulfillment of export obligations, the enforcement of bank guarantees, and the applicability of the Customs Act in refund claims. The legal interpretation provided by the Commissioner (Appeals) and supported by Tribunal decisions clarified the rights of importers in cases where bank guarantees are encashed without confirmed demands, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling export obligations within the prescribed time limits.
|
