2007 (8) TMI 223 - AT - Customs

Request of appellant to adjust the duty demand against the refund due to him When provisional assessment is finalized , excess duty paid should be adjusted against the demand Moreover incidence of duty has not been passed Bank guarantee executed should be returned

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against duty levied on imported crude palm oil
2. Provisional assessment and finalization
3. Differential duty payment and refund claim
4. Adjustment of excess duty paid against demand
5. Bank guarantee refund and amount adjustment

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the duty levied on imported crude palm oil through a Writ Petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. After executing a bank guarantee as per the court's order, the provisional assessment was finalized by the department. The appellant sought adjustment of excess duty paid against the demand and refund due to him.

2. The Commissioner (A) partially upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision, directing the appellant to pay the demanded differential duty and file a separate refund claim. However, the Commissioner (A) exempted the appellant from paying interest on the differential amount due, citing the absence of a provision for interest during that period.

3. During the hearing, the appellant's representative argued for adjusting the excess duty paid against the demand, citing various legal precedents supporting such adjustments. It was highlighted that the refund due to the appellant had not been passed on to consumers, as confirmed by a certificate from a Chartered Accountant.

4. The Appellate Tribunal found the appellant's request for adjustment to be reasonable, noting that there was no legal barrier in the Customs Act preventing such adjustments. The Tribunal agreed that the excess amount paid should be adjusted against the amount due from the appellant to the department, emphasizing that the issue had already been addressed in the Writ Petition.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant's request for adjustment and the return of the bank guarantee. The decision was made in favor of the appellant, concluding the matter in line with the appellant's arguments and legal rights.