9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 799 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - 100% EOU - Refund of 5% excess Basic Custom duty paid - appellant submitted that during de-bonding, the appellants had paid the Customs and Excise Duties as if the goods are cleared under DTA, under protest, as directed by the Revenue on the semi-finished goods, work-in-progress and finished goods; however, the appellants are liable to pay duty, as per Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. - It is submitted by the Department that the appellants have paid the duty in accordance with the provisions of law and that there is no excess payment for granting refund. Whether the appellants have made payment of excess duty and if so, whether they are eligible for refund? HELD THAT - In the case of CGST CCE, TRICHY VERSUS M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LIMITED 2018 (8) TMI 1494 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the Tribunal held that the demand of duty in respect of semi-finished goods cannot sustain. The Tribunal followed the decision in the case of TIRUMALA SEUNG HAN TEXTILES LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX. (A), HYDERABAD 2008 (9) TMI 252 - CESTAT BANGALORE to set aside the demand. The rejection of refund is without any legal or factual basis. The appellants have also filed miscellaneous applications seeking consideration of the decision in the case of M/S. JUBILANT LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED VERSUS CCE, MEERUT-II 2013 (11) TMI 1213 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and other decisions. There is no new plea put forward by the appellants and these applications are only a prayer for consideration of the application of the proposition of law laid down in these judgements. The same have already been considered. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants paid excess duty during de-bonding. 2. Whether the appellants are eligible for a refund of the excess duty paid. Summary: 1. Excess Duty Payment During De-bonding: The appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), exited the EOU scheme in 2011. They remitted duty on imported and indigenously procured goods, including finished and semi-finished goods, and requested a 'No Due' Certificate, which was issued. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim, arguing they paid an excess amount of duty. They contended they were liable to pay duty as per Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. dated 31.03.2003, which stipulates a 50% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) rate. However, the Range Officer directed them to calculate the duty without considering this method, resulting in excess payment. 2. Eligibility for Refund: The refund sanctioning authority rejected the claim, stating the tax paid was correct. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellants argued that they paid the duty under protest and were eligible for a refund of the excess 5% BCD. They cited several decisions supporting their contention that semi-finished goods/work-in-progress goods should not attract duty as they had not completed the manufacturing stage. They also argued that the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. should apply, allowing them to pay a concessional rate of duty. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal considered the appellants' arguments and relevant case law, including decisions in M/s. Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut and M/s. EID Parry India Ltd. The Tribunal found that the rejection of the refund was without legal or factual basis. It was held that the appellants were eligible for the concessional rate of duty as per Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. and that the duty paid on semi-finished goods could not be sustained. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowed the appeals with consequential reliefs, and disposed of the miscellaneous applications filed by the appellants accordingly. (Order pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2023)
|
