2022 (5) TMI 394 - AT - Customs

Advance Authorization Scheme - Rejection of refund claim - refund rejected on the ground that there is no excess payment and that the duty liability arose on account of non-fulfillment of the conditions of the license - inputsd used in the manufacture of export goods or not - HELD THAT - According to the appellant, they have paid duty as per TR6 challan and could not avail the credit of IGST paid as part of the duty liability. In the present case, it has to be noted that the duty was paid as the appellants were not able to fulfill the export obligation as per the Advance Authorization license. It then becomes clear that the inputs have not been used in the manufacture of final products for export. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. SERVO PACKAGING LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY 2020 (2) TMI 353 - CESTAT CHENNAI had occasion to consider a similar issue and held that the refund is not eligible. There are no reasons to take a different view from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Servo Packaging Ltd. - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Advance Authorization Scheme due to non-fulfillment of export obligation, inability to avail credit of IGST paid through TR6 challan, applicability of Tribunal's decision in Servo Packaging Ltd. case on refund eligibility.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding the rejection of the refund claim by the appellant. The appellant imported goods under the Advance Authorization Scheme but failed to fulfill the export obligation as stipulated in the licenses, leading to the payment of duty and interest on unused inputs. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds of no excess payment due to non-fulfillment of license conditions. The appellant argued that they couldn't avail IGST credit paid via TR6 challan. The department contended that no excess duty was paid as the duty liability arose from unmet export obligations under the license. The department cited the Tribunal's decision in Servo Packaging Ltd. case to support their stance.

During the hearing, the appellant reiterated their grounds for appeal, emphasizing the duty paid via TR6 challan and the inability to claim IGST credit. The department clarified that the duty was remitted due to unmet export obligations, making the appellant ineligible for a refund on unused inputs. The Tribunal noted that the duty payment was a result of the appellant's failure to fulfill export obligations under the Advance Authorization license, indicating that the inputs were not utilized for export products.

The Tribunal referenced the Servo Packaging Ltd. case where it was held that claiming a refund for duty paid on unused inputs due to unmet export obligations was not permissible. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on the Servo Packaging Ltd. case's findings. The Tribunal reiterated the reasoning from the Servo Packaging Ltd. case regarding the conditional nature of the import under the Advance Authorization Scheme and the ineligibility for refund in case of non-fulfillment of export obligations. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, aligning with the Servo Packaging Ltd. case's interpretation and finding no grounds for interference with the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the duty payment due to unmet export obligations under the Advance Authorization Scheme and the inapplicability of IGST credit in such circumstances. The decision was based on established legal precedents and interpretations, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.