9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1814 - AT - CustomsRefund of Customs Duty - Rejection mainly on the ground that the assessment made by the appellant in the Bill of Entry reached its finality which they have not challenged - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in the case of C.C. (EXPORT) NEW DELHI VERSUS SHRI LALIT KUMAR PROPRIETOR 2017 (1) TMI 7 - CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that the refund claim of the appellant was maintainable under Section 27 of the Customs Act and the non-filing of the appeal against the assessed bill of entry does not deprive the appellant to file its claim for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962 and which claim will fall under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 27. Refund cannot be rejected on this ground - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of appeals. 2. Refund of Customs Duty for Anhydrous Ammonia. 3. Refund of Customs Duty for Muriate of Potash (MOP). 4. Refund of Customs Duty for Rock Phosphate. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Restoration of Appeals: The appellants filed a Miscellaneous Application on 14.09.2018 for the restoration of their appeals, which were previously disposed of by the Tribunal on 30.11.2017. The Tribunal had observed that the issue was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Micromax Informatics Ltd. and granted liberty to the appellants to come again after the final verdict from the Supreme Court. The appellants contended that the Supreme Court had refused to stay the operation of the Delhi High Court's order, which was not available at the time of the Tribunal's decision. Therefore, they sought restoration of their appeals based on the Supreme Court's refusal to stay the High Court's order. 2. Refund of Customs Duty for Anhydrous Ammonia: The appellants imported Anhydrous Ammonia from Indonesia, which was fully exempted from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No. 46/2011 Cus dated 01.06.2011. Due to the lack of original documents regarding the country of origin, the item was cleared on payment of BCD at the full rate under self-assessment. Upon receipt of the original documents, the appellants claimed a refund of the duty paid. The refund application was rejected on the grounds that the assessment of the bill of entry was final and not challenged. The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Share Medical Care Vs. UOI and that the rejection was based on outdated provisions of Section 17 and 27 of the Customs Act. 3. Refund of Customs Duty for Muriate of Potash (MOP): The appellants imported MOP under two bills of entry, which was fully exempted from Countervailing Duty (CVD) under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. Due to system limitations, the exemption was not applied, and the appellants cleared the MOP on self-assessment with payment of CVD at the usual rate. They subsequently claimed a refund of the duty paid. The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was filed within the prescribed time and that the appellants were entitled to the exemption. 4. Refund of Customs Duty for Rock Phosphate: The appellants imported Rock Phosphate from Jordan under a contract with a price variation clause. The goods were cleared on payment of duty based on the value shown in the bills of lading. After the contract period, price discounts were determined, and the appellants received refunds from the suppliers, which reduced the transaction value of the imported goods. The refund claims were rejected on the grounds that the assessments were final and not challenged. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Export) New Delhi Vs. Lalit Kumar, which distinguished between duty paid in pursuance of an assessment order and duty borne by the importer. The Tribunal found that the appellants' case fell under the latter category and that they were entitled to claim refunds under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals filed by the appellants. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in the open court.
|
