9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the time limit specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act is applicable to the refund of the amount realized by the Revenue by encashing the bank guarantee. Analysis: The appellant imported goods under EPCG licenses and availed duty exemption under Notification No. 110/95-Cus. The dispute arose when the Customs Department encashed the bank guarantees due to alleged non-fulfillment of export obligations. The appellant argued that the encashment was not for duty payment, as they had fulfilled obligations early. They contended that the encashment was not pursuant to a duty assessment order, thus Section 27's time limit did not apply. They cited legal precedents to support their position, emphasizing that bank guarantees are for security, not duty payment. The appellant also clarified they were not seeking interest under the Customs Act for delayed payment. The Revenue maintained that the refund claims were time-barred under Section 27, as they were filed beyond 6 months from the bank guarantee encashment. However, the Tribunal found that the encashment was not for duty payment but for non-production of a discharge certificate, as the export obligations were already fulfilled. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., the Tribunal held that bank guarantee encashment does not constitute duty payment, hence Section 27's time limit does not apply. The Tribunal also referenced a similar case involving Whirlpool of India Ltd., where a delay in certificate issuance did not justify penalizing the importer. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed all 3 appeals, ruling that the time limit in Section 27 does not apply to refund amounts obtained through bank guarantee enforcement, as it does not represent duty under the Customs Act.
|
