2017 (3) TMI 445 - AT - Customs

Refund - SAD - rejection on the ground that refund was claimed in accordance with circular no. 6/2008-Cus dated 28th April 2008 which limited the claim to one per each month - Held that - circular of Central Board of Excise and Customs has not barred sanctioning of a second claim even though it placed emphasis on filing of a single claim for each month to streamline the procedure - the instructions dated 20th October 2010 in F. No. 390/Misc./67/2010-JC of Central Board of Excise and Customs restricts the resort to appellate remedies only to such cases that involve revenue of at least ₹ 1 lakh. It is also clarified by instruction dated 17th August 2011 that this monetary limit would apply to cases of refund as well - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim of refund for 'off grade plastic granules' imported by M/s Nidhi Impex.
2. Interpretation of circular no. 6/2008-Cus dated 28th April 2008 limiting refund claims to one per month.
3. Validity of the decision of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) allowing the refund claim.
4. Compliance with the circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs regarding appellate remedies and monetary limits for refund cases.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, M/s Nidhi Impex, imported 'off grade plastic granules' and claimed a refund of special additional duty charged on the import. The claim was made in accordance with circular no. 6/2008-Cus which restricted the claim to one per month. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs denied the claim initially.

2. On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) allowed the refund, stating that the circular did not prohibit sanctioning a second claim, even though it emphasized filing a single claim per month. The impugned order also highlighted that following the circular was not mandatory, citing a Supreme Court decision that new conditions cannot be added to exemption notifications.

3. The original authority contested two separate claims filed on 1st July 2014 and 15th July 2014, arguing that selling the entire quantity of goods covered by both claims before the first claim was submitted did not justify splitting the claim.

4. The judgment referenced instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 20th October 2010 and 17th August 2011, which imposed a monetary limit of at least ?1 lakh for resorting to appellate remedies, including refund cases. The appeal was dismissed based on the restriction outlined in these circulars.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the denial of the refund claim by dismissing the appeal, citing compliance with the monetary limits set by the circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the circular restricting refund claims to one per month and emphasized the importance of following such guidelines in customs matters.