2015 (3) TMI 162 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - goods assessed under RSP without availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 29/2010 dated 27.02.2010 - Held that - Tribunal in the respondents own case 2013 (11) TMI 994 - CESTAT CHENNAI , dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. Further, the Tribunal in 2014 (5) TMI 243 - CESTAT CHENNAI , dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Cargo), Chennai Vs. M/s. Redington India Ltd. and others - Following these previous orders - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order modifying refund claim rejection for SAD on goods assessed on RSP without availing exemption under Notification No. 29/2010.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered the appeals filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order modifying the rejection of the refund claim for the SAD on goods assessed on RSP. The Tribunal noted that the respondents had filed refund claims for goods assessed under RSP without availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 29/2010 dated 27.02.2010. The Tribunal referred to its previous orders dismissing similar appeals by the Revenue in related cases, emphasizing that the refund was not claimed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, and no re-assessment of Bills of Entries was prescribed under the notification.

2. The Tribunal delved into the issue of whether an importer can be penalized for not claiming exemption under Notification No. 29/2010-Cus at the time of importation by refusing to grant a refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Tribunal cited various court decisions to support the position that an importer cannot be forced to avail any particular exemption. It highlighted that the decisions were relevant in the context of Central Excise duty, where paying duty on exempted goods has adverse consequences for revenue as opposed to SAD, where no such financial disadvantage to the importer exists.

3. The Tribunal further discussed the absence of an explanation in Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, similar to the one introduced in the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the consequences of paying duty on exempted goods. It emphasized that the payment of SAD at the time of importation and claiming a refund later does not cause financial disadvantage to the importer and does not have adverse consequences for revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals filed by the Revenue on these grounds were not maintainable.

4. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed marginal issues raised by the adjudicating authority, such as the filing of original documents and the timing of invoice issuance. It noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had given appropriate directions on these issues, and the Revenue did not appeal against them. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order in a specific case concerning the refund rejection due to the goods being imported through Sea Customs but the claim filed before Air Customs, Chennai, based on a precedent cited by the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, and disposed of the stay petitions and cross-objections accordingly. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal principles discussed, previous orders, and the specific circumstances of the case.