2018 (8) TMI 1696 - AT - Customs

Refund of CVD paid - the CVD amount was paid under protest - rejection of refund claim on the ground of time limitation - Held that - The issue has now been laid to rest by the Hon ble High Court in their own case Tinna Rubber & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Union of India 2017 (5) TMI 183 - DELHI HIGH COURT , where it was held that imposition of 12% CVD under Section 3(1) of the CTA on cut pieces of used tyres and used tubes is unlawful and ultra vires the CTA - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Import of tyre scrap, payment of additional duty of Customs (CVD), self-assessment, dispute on CVD imposability, payment under protest, legality of CVD imposition, High Court's judgment on CVD, refund claims rejection.

Analysis:
The appeals involved a dispute regarding the import of tyre scrap cut into pieces and the payment of additional duty of Customs (CVD) by the appellants. The appellants had represented that CVD was not required on these imports, but they paid it under protest due to issues with the EDI system. The lower appellate authorities held that duty was not paid under protest and upheld the assessment orders, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. However, the appellants had similar disputes at other ports and approached the High Court of Delhi, which set aside a clarification stating that CVD was applicable on such imports. The High Court declared the imposition of 12% CVD on cut pieces of used tyres unlawful and ultra vires of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellants argued that the High Court's decision should prevail, and refund claims should not be rejected based on limitation.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted that the High Court's judgment had settled the dispute on CVD imposability and that all payments were made under protest. On the contrary, the respondent supported the impugned order. After considering both sides and the facts, the Tribunal noted the High Court's judgment, which declared the imposition of CVD on cut pieces of used tyres unlawful. As the appellants had paid the amounts under protest, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the High Court's judgment, which deemed the imposition of CVD on imported tyre scrap as unlawful. The appellants' payments made under protest played a crucial role in the Tribunal's ruling, leading to the setting aside of the assessment orders and allowing the appeals with appropriate relief.