1987 (6) TMI 154 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Claim for refund of countervailing duty.
3. Interpretation of the refund application and working sheet.
4. Bar on limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported a Sulphuric Acid Plant, initially assessed at 100% ad valorem under heading 39.07 of the CTA, 1975. They later requested re-assessment at 40% ad valorem under heading 73.17/19(4) of the CTA and refund of excess duty. The Collector (Appeals) held the original assessment was incorrect, classifying the goods under heading 73.17/19(4) and rejecting the claim for reassessment under item 26AA of the CET due to a lack of C.V. duty mention in the initial claim. The appellants contested for a refund of the differential amount of additional duty.

2. The appellants argued that the Collector (Appeals) erroneously rejected the claim for countervailing duty refund, emphasizing that the goods were assessable under heading 73.17/19(4) of the CTA 1975. They contended that the claim for countervailing duty was implicit in the original refund application, which included the amount paid on account of countervailing duty. The Tribunal held that the claim for additional duty was not time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the subsequent letter clarified the original claim and did not constitute a new claim.

3. The J.D.R. suggested remanding the matter for further classification of the goods for countervailing duty, highlighting that the initial refund application did not specify the non-chargeability of countervailing duty under item 15A(2) of the CET. The J.D.R. distinguished previous Tribunal decisions cited by the appellants, stating they were not directly applicable to the present case due to differing factual circumstances.

4. The Tribunal concurred with the Collector (Appeals) on the correct classification of goods for basic Customs duty but disagreed on the countervailing duty refund. It found that the appellants' original claim implicitly included the refund of additional duty, and the subsequent letter merely elaborated on the initial claim. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the refund of the differential amount of additional duty under item 26AA of the CET. The Tribunal deemed the claim admissible and declined to remand the case to the lower authority.