2014 (11) TMI 1215 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - reselling the goods back to the high sea sellers - HELD THAT - Identical issue decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD VERSUS M.B. ENTERPRISE 2015 (12) TMI 578 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that there is no condition under N/N. 102/2007-Cus that SAD duty should be initially paid through cash. It has been correctly agitated by the respondents in the cross objections that a right given under an exemption notification can not be taken away by the issue of Departmental Circulars. There is no reason to deviate from such a view already taken - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Stay Petitions disposal, Appeals disposal, Cross objections, SAD refunds, Re-credit in licenses, Business transactions arrangement, CBEC Circulars, Utilization of re-credited amounts, Exemption notification rights, Departmental Circulars interference.

Stay Petitions Disposal:
The Stay Petitions were disposed of collectively as the issue in the appeals was the same. The Tribunal found that the appeals could be resolved as they were limited in scope. Subsequently, the Stay Petitions were dismissed, and the appeals were taken up for disposal.

Cross Objections and Appeals Disposal:
The appellant had filed cross objections against the order, claiming similarity to a previous Final Order by the bench in the respondent's case. The Chartered Accountant argued based on this precedent. The Departmental Representative tried to distinguish the previous order based on factual grounds, mentioning a case where business transactions were structured to claim refunds. However, the Tribunal, after reviewing the previous order and the current case, found no reason to deviate from the earlier decision. It held that the impugned order was correct, and the Department's appeals lacked merit. The cross objections filed by the respondent were also disposed of accordingly.

SAD Refunds and Re-Credit in Licenses:
The core issue revolved around the sanctioning of 4% SAD refunds through re-credit in licenses post a specified date. The Tribunal referred to Circulars permitting re-credited amounts' utilization until certain dates. It noted that the re-credits were provided before the deadline and that no evidence suggested re-credits were allowed post the cut-off. Additionally, it highlighted that the absence of a condition in the Notification regarding initial cash payment for SAD duty. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents that rights under an exemption notification couldn't be revoked by Departmental Circulars. Consequently, it upheld the first appellate authority's orders as legally sound and declined to interfere.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD demonstrates a thorough review of the issues, arguments presented, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies involved.