2015 (11) TMI 819 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - benefit of the customs notification No. 21/2003 dated 01.03.2003 - Commissioner held that refund can be granted if its proven under certification of ACCE that the impugned goods were used fully for intended purposes as per the Registration Certificate - Held that - Bill of Entry No. 550344 was filed on 28.06.2003, and the imported consignment was cleared on 30.06.2003. Registration under Rule 3 was done on 14.07.2003 and the application under Rule 4 was filed on 18.07.2003. All these requirements are merely procedural and the intent of these statute is to ensure that the use of the goods imported by the manufacturer are for the intended purpose as declared in the application. - importer is entitled for the benefit of the notification and refund can be granted if it is proven under certification of ACCE that the impugned goods were used fully for intended purpose as per the Registration certificate. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Customs Notification No. 21/2003.
2. Compliance with Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996.
3. Requirement of registration and application for imports.
4. Procedural requirements for availing benefits under Notification No. 21/2003.
5. Interpretation of Rules 3 and 4 of (IGCRDMEG) for statutory compliance.
6. Applicability of Notification No. 21/2003 to the imported goods.
7. Decision on the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the respondent assessee the benefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2003 for concessional rate of duty on imported goods. The Revenue contested that the importer misrepresented facts by clearing goods on payment of duty before fulfilling necessary conditions.

2. The respondent importer, a pharmaceutical company, imported Chlorohydrate Aniodorone and claimed refund under Sl.No. 80(B) of the said Notification. The Revenue rejected the refund claim citing non-registration and non-compliance with Customs Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal annulling the original order.

3. The Revenue argued that the importer failed to comply with Rules 3 and 4 of (IGCRDMEG) for registration and application before importation. The importer contended that the procedural requirements were fulfilled subsequently and were technical in nature, citing precedents to support their claim.

4. The Tribunal examined the timeline of events and noted that registration and application were completed after importation but before use of goods, deeming them procedural. The statutory interpretation of Rules 3 and 4 emphasized the importance of ensuring intended use of imported goods.

5. The Commissioner (Appeals) order highlighted that the requirements under Customs (IGCRD) Rule, 1996 were procedural and could be fulfilled post-importation but before use of goods. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing the importance of proving the intended use of imported goods for granting refunds.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating that the imported goods were covered under the relevant Notification, and the appeal by the Revenue was rejected. The judgment clarified the procedural nature of the requirements and the significance of ensuring the intended use of imported goods for concessional benefits.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues and details of the legal judgment, providing a thorough understanding of the case and its implications.

← Previous Next →