2022 (3) TMI 58 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim - CVD and SAD paid for regularisation of advance licence (import licence) - HELD THAT - The payment of CVD and SAD subsequently during GST regime for the imports made prior to 30.06.2017 is not disputed under the advance authorisation scheme. It is also not disputed that the appellant have paid the CVD and SAD in August 2018 by way of regularisation on being so pointed out by the Revenue Authority. Further it is found that the Court below have erred in observing in the impugned order that without producing proper records of duty paid invoices etc. in manufacture of dutiable final product refund cannot be given. It is also found that refund of CVD and SAD in question is allowable as credit is no longer available under the GST regime which was however available under the erstwhile regime of Central Excise prior to 30.06.2017. Accordingly the appellant is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) and (6) of the CGST Act. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner is directed to grant refunds to the appellant of the amount of SAD CVD as reflected in the show causes notices and also in the orders-in-appeal - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether refund rightly rejected on CVD + SAD paid for regularisation of advance licence.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in drug manufacturing, imported raw materials under Advance Licenses, using them for finished goods either for export or domestic market. Disputes arose among shareholders, leading to a settlement. The Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade issued a deficiency letter, prompting the appellant to deposit BCD, CVD, and SAD foregone for excess imports under the Advance License. The appellant regularized the license by making necessary payments on specific dates. The appellant filed a refund claim under the Central Excise Act 1944 for CVD and SAD paid post-GST regime implementation.

Analysis Continued:
Respective show cause notices were issued, followed by Order-in-Originals rejecting the refund claims. Appeals were made before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the rejection citing lack of documentary evidence. The burden of eligibility for cenvat credit was emphasized, which the appellant failed to substantiate. The learned counsel argued that the goods were duly imported, entered in registers, utilized in manufacturing, and cleared on payment of duty, presenting evidence disregarded by lower authorities.

Analysis Continued:
The counsel referred to a precedent ruling supporting refund entitlement under similar circumstances. The Revenue's representative relied on the impugned order. The judgment recognized the payment of CVD and SAD post-GST regime for imports pre-June 2017, not disputed under the advance authorization scheme. The appellant's entitlement to refund under Section 142(3) and (6) of the CGST Act was upheld due to credit unavailability post-GST, contrary to the previous Central Excise regime. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was directed to grant refunds with interest within 45 days, setting aside the impugned orders.

Conclusion:
All three appeals were allowed, emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to refund for CVD and SAD payments made for regularizing advance licenses post-GST regime implementation.