9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1157 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - benefit of Notification under Indo-Srilanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) - Whether the benefit of the Notification No.26/2000-Cus, which was not claimed earlier was eligible to the appellant when claimed at a later date after payment of duty - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the goods have been imported from Srilanka and the appellant has placed on record the country-of-origin certificate and since the above imported goods are eligible for the benefit of the Notification, the denial of the benefit of the Notification only because they have not claimed at the time of filing the Bill of Entry cannot be a ground for denying the benefit as long as the conditions of the Notification are satisfied. The goods were cleared on 15.4.2009 and the claim for reassessment / refund was filed on 24.04.2009 well within the stipulated time as per the Board s Circular for amendment or reassessment. The learned counsel has rightly relied upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in Hero Cycles vs. UOI 2009 (6) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Thus, we do not find any reason to deny the benefit of the Notification No.26/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of refund claim for not claiming benefit of Notification under ISFTA at the time of filing Bill of Entry.
Summary: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for not claiming the benefit of Notification under the Indo-Srilanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. The appellant, M/s. Kairali Granites, imported marble slabs from Srilanka without initially claiming the benefit of the Notification. The Original Authority rejected the refund application stating that the benefit cannot be extended at a later date. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant argued that they had informed the Commissioner of Customs about the import under ISFTA and later requested reassessment with supporting documents. However, the refund claim was rejected on the grounds that the assessment had not been challenged. The appellant cited a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay to support their case. The Authorised Representative maintained that the benefit of the Notification cannot be extended if not claimed at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered whether the benefit of the Notification, not initially claimed, could be granted later. It was noted that the goods were indeed imported from Srilanka and the appellant had submitted the necessary documents. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and concluded that the benefit should not be denied solely based on not claiming it at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. The appeal was allowed, and the benefit of the Notification was granted to the appellant. The Tribunal pronounced the operative portion of the order in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.
|
