2009 (3) TMI 165 - AT - Customs

Refund Bill of entry provisional assessment relevant document for refund The claim was however rejected on the ground that the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry was not filed along with the claim for refund - Public Notice No. 436/2002 - held that - that since only two copies of the exbond Bill of Entry are generated one copy for the importer and the other for the bond section the question of the production of triplicate copy does not arise - There is no dispute that the respondents did produce the duplicate exbond Bill of Entry which was sufficient for the purpose for granting the claim for refund.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) based on the rejection of the claim due to missing triplicate copy of Bill of Entry.

Analysis:
The case involved the importation of Lead Calcium Positive Alloy by the respondents, who warehoused the goods and filed an Exbond Bill of Entry for clearance under the Advance Licence issued under DEEC Scheme. The Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed with an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) of 1% pending clarification from the DGFT. Upon receiving clearance from the DGFT, the Bill of Entry was finally assessed to nil rate of duty, leading to a claim for refund of the EDD. However, the claim was rejected by the revenue on the grounds that the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry was not submitted along with the refund claim.

During the appeal, the Commissioner (A) set aside the rejection of the claim, noting that the triplicate copy could not be produced, but the duplicate copy in original, available with the respondents, was submitted. The Vice-President, after hearing both sides, referred to Public Notice No. 436/2002 and concluded that since only two copies of the exbond Bill of Entry are generated, the production of a triplicate copy was unnecessary. It was established that the respondents had provided the duplicate exbond Bill of Entry, which was deemed sufficient for granting the claim for refund.

Based on the above analysis, the Vice-President found no reason to interfere with the decision of the lower appellate authority and upheld the ruling accordingly. The cross objections were also disposed of, as they were merely a response to the revenue's appeal, without raising any new substantive issues. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court, bringing the matter to a close.