9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Early disposal of appeal, rejection of refund claim on grounds of time-bar and eligibility for exemption under Notification 29/97-Cus., denial of benefit of notification for knitting machine, interpretation of capital goods under EPCG scheme, reliance on judgments in similar cases, rejection of refund claim based on failure to challenge assessment.
Early Disposal of Appeal: The Appellate Tribunal, after considering submissions and a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, allowed the application for early disposal of the appeal due to the urgency of the case and the presence of a relevant precedent. Rejection of Refund Claim - Time-bar and Eligibility for Exemption: The lower authorities rejected the assessee's refund claim citing it as time-barred and claiming the claimant was not eligible for exemption under Notification 29/97-Cus. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had protested against the denial of the benefit of the notification through letters to the Customs authorities, which were not considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that the time-bar was not applicable in this case as the assessee had paid the additional duty under protest. Denial of Benefit of Notification for Knitting Machine: The Tribunal noted that the benefit of the notification was denied on the grounds that the knitting machine was not considered for use in the manufacture of garments. However, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment which clarified that all machines required for the ultimate manufacture of garments were covered under the notification, including those for knitting. Interpretation of Capital Goods under EPCG Scheme: The Tribunal highlighted that the authorities' view that only machines directly used in the manufacture of garments from processed yarns were covered by the notification did not align with the Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which stated that all machines required for garment manufacture were covered. Reliance on Judgments in Similar Cases: The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a Supreme Court judgment in a different case to deny the refund claim based on the failure to challenge the assessment of the Bill of Entry. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had protested against the assessment without granting the benefit of the notification, indicating that they were not acquiescing in the assessment. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the refund claim, and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the rejection of the refund claim based on the failure to challenge the assessment was not justified in this case.
|
