9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1128 - AT - CustomsDemand of 1% Extra Duty Deposit - import of Silicon Electrical Steel of Cold Rolled Full Hard (unannealed) - appellant argued that the impugned order is non-speaking and passed without application of mind - Circular No.11/2001-Cus - HELD THAT - In terms of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) CUSTOM HOUSE VERSUS M/S. SAYONARA EXPORTS PVT. LTD., CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2015 (3) TMI 861 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the appellants would be entitle to automatic refund of EDD without filing of application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon ble High Court held that there is no need to file any refund application and the order for refund can be made suo moto. The appellant was not even required to file refund claim and EDD should have been refunded without filing of refund claim. In this circumstances, if and when the refund claim was filed by the appellant cannot be treated as barred by limitation - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
- Denial of refund of Extra Duty Deposit paid by the appellant in terms of CBEC Circular No.11/2001 relating to cases handled by Special Valuation Branch of the customs house. - Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the refund claim filed by the appellant. - Whether the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) paid is a security deposit or provisional duty payment. - Entitlement to interest on delayed payment of refund of EDD. Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of Refund of Extra Duty Deposit The appellant imported goods from a related entity in Taiwan, leading to the matter being referred to the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) for valuation. The appellant paid 1% Extra Duty Deposit during the investigation, which was refundable upon final assessment approving the declared value. A show cause notice was issued alleging the refund claim was time-barred due to the finalization of assessment dates falling before the claim filing date. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act The appellant argued that the 1% EDD was a security deposit, not a duty payment, hence Section 27 did not apply to the refund claim. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that previous decisions supported their position that Section 27 does not cover the refund of EDD. The appellant highlighted Circular No.5/2016, emphasizing that EDD is a security deposit as per CBEC's directive, further supported by a previous refund granted in their favor. Issue 3: Nature of Extra Duty Deposit The appellant emphasized that the EDD was a security deposit, not provisional duty payment, as per Circular No.11/2001-Cus. They argued that the decision in BUSSA OVERSEAS AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. was inapplicable due to differing facts, asserting their entitlement to interest on delayed refund payment. Issue 4: Entitlement to Interest The appellant pressed for interest on delayed refund payment, reinforcing their stance that the decision in BUSSA OVERSEAS AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. did not align with the present case's circumstances. They highlighted a previous refund granted by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, further supporting their claim for interest on delayed refund of EDD. Judgment: The Tribunal found that the decision in BUSSA OVERSEAS AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. was distinct from the present case. Referring to the decision of the High Court of Madras, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant was entitled to an automatic refund of EDD without the need for a formal refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's entitlement to the refund was upheld, emphasizing that the refund claim was not time-barred.
|
