Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 985 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - period of limitation - concessional rate of duty - N/N. 345/86 - import of polypropylene granules for manufacture of BOPP film - Held that - eligibility to benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.345/86 is subject to the condition that importer produces a certificate issued by the Industrial Advisor in the office of the DGTD, GOI. It is undisputed case in hand, the said exemption certificate was produced on 15/07/1993 while the goods were cleared from the docks during the period 04/07/86 to 18/05/1993. Since the basic condition of the notification required the importer to produce the certificate at the time of clearance of the goods from the docks which has not been complied in the case in hand, we find that the refund claim filed by the appellant has been correctly rejected on the ground of limitation and it is also on record that the goods were not assessed provisionally nor duty was paid under protest. For all practical purposes, the appellants have discharged the correct duty liability during the period 1986 to 1993, and refund claim has been filed after a period of six months from the date of payment of duty and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower authorities rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. The appeal is rejected.
Issues:
1. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Notification No.345/86. 2. Requirement of producing certificate from Industrial Advisor in DGTD at the time of clearance. 3. Rejection of refund claim based on non-compliance with conditions and limitation period. Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty The appellant filed a refund claim stating they did not avail the benefit of Notification No.345/86, which allowed a concessional rate of duty on imported polypropylene granules for manufacturing BOPP film. The notification required a certificate from the Industrial Advisor in the DGTD for clearance at a concessional rate of duty. The appellant claimed they applied for the certificate before clearance but did not have it at the time. The Tribunal noted the appellant's failure to produce the certificate at the time of clearance, which was a basic condition for availing the benefit under the notification. Issue 2: Requirement of Certificate at the Time of Clearance The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption certificate was produced after the goods were cleared from the docks, contrary to the requirement of presenting it at the time of clearance. The appellant's argument that they applied for the certificate before clearance did not exempt them from complying with the notification's condition. As the certificate was not available during the clearance period, the refund claim was rightly rejected based on non-compliance with the essential condition of producing the certificate at the time of clearance. Issue 3: Rejection of Refund Claim The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim due to the appellant's failure to produce the required certificate at the time of clearance, leading to the payment of full duty. The appellant's claim for refund, made after six months from the duty payment, was deemed untimely. Since the duty was paid without protest or provisional assessment, and the refund claim was filed beyond the permissible period, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the lower authorities' decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the appellant's refund claim as they failed to comply with the essential condition of producing the required certificate at the time of clearance, rendering them ineligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No.345/86.
|