2024 (6) TMI 913 - AT - Customs

Refund claim for the payment of Customs duty on the import of Anhydrous Ammonia at a preferential rate - appellant has not challenged the assessment of duty done through RMS in EDI and paid duty so assessed through TR-6 Challan - benefit of N/N. 53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011 - requirement of submission of the Certificate of Country of Origin by the notification - HELD THAT - It is found that initially, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that as the appellant has not challenged the assessment of Bills of Entry in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT , therefore, the refund claim is not maintainable without challenging of the assessment of Bill of Entry and in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT , it is found that for both the cases, the period involved is prior to self assessment regime i.e. prior to 08.04.2011. Therefore, the decisions of the said cases are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the Bills of Entry was filed through the EDI System and approval of the self assessment was done under Risk Management System. Therefore, the said decision of the Hon ble Apex Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In that view, the ground that the appellant has not challenged the assessment of the Bill of Entry, is not sustainable. The only objection raised by the Revenue is that the said Certificate is not as per the format under exemption Notification and not issued by the Malysia Chamber of Commerce. The appellant has produced the Certificate of Origin issued by the manufacturer/supplier and for the subsequent imports, the appellant has been able to produce the Certificate issued by the Malysia Chamber of Commerce from the same supplier of the identical goods under the Bills of Entry in question. Therefore, the appellant has subsequently complied with the condition of the Notification. The benefit of Notification No.53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011, cannot be denied to the appellant as the appellant has complied the subsequent condition of the Notification - the appellant is entitled for refund claim as prayed by the appellant. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the eligibility of a refund claim for the payment of Customs duty on the import of Anhydrous Ammonia at a preferential rate, the challenge of the assessment order, and the submission of the Certificate of Country of Origin as required by the Notification.

Eligibility of Refund Claim:
The appellant filed a refund claim application stating that they paid duty at 5% on goods eligible for a preferential rate of 2% under Notification No.53/2011-Cus. The show-cause notices contended that the appellant did not challenge the assessment of duty done through Risk Management System and paid the assessed duty, rendering the refund claim inadmissible. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims, which were confirmed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

Challenge of Assessment Order:
The appellant argued that the decision of Priya Blue Industries Limited regarding challenging the assessment order was not applicable as the Bills of Entry were filed under the EDI System and approved under the Risk Management System. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that the impugned orders should be set aside and the refund allowed.

Submission of Certificate of Country of Origin:
The Revenue contended that the appellant did not submit the Certificate of Country of Origin issued by the Malaysia Chamber of Commerce, thus not complying with the Notification. However, during the adjudication proceedings, the appellant produced the Certificate of Origin issued by the manufacturer/supplier. The Tribunal found that the subsequent compliance with the condition of the Notification warranted the benefit of the preferential rate, leading to the allowance of the refund claim.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim as they had complied with the subsequent condition of the Notification. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellant were allowed.