9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1470 - AT - CustomsRefund of differential duty at the higher rate @ 12.5% instead of @ 7.5% for the import of Edible Grade Crude Palm Oil - change in duty rates through Notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 which was published in the Gazette Notification on 21.09.2015 - HELD THAT - Considering the facts that although the N/N. 46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 was published in Gazette Notification on 21.09.2015 therefore at the time of filing of the Bill of Entry it is held that the Gazette Notification was not in operation as the same is to be operated from the date of publication in Gazette Notification which is well after the date of filing of the Bill of Entry. The similar issue came before the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Union of India Vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. 2021 (6) TMI 555 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that the enhancement rate of duty under Notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 would apply only w.e.f. 21.09.2015. Conclusion The Notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The differential duty is not payable by the respondent. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
The appeal was filed against the refund of differential duty at a higher rate of 12.5% instead of 7.5% for the import of Edible Grade Crude Palm Oil. The issue arose due to a change in duty rates through Notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015, which was published in the Gazette Notification on 21.09.2015. The Tribunal held that since the Gazette Notification was not in operation at the time of filing the Bill of Entry, the increased duty rate only applied from 21.09.2015. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal ruled that the higher duty rate was not applicable to the import in question. Consequently, the differential duty was deemed not payable, and the original duty payment of 7.5% was considered correct. The Tribunal upheld the refund order in favor of the respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
|
