9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 915 - AT - CustomsRecovery of special additional duty (SAD) of customs on imports that was discharged by debit of scrips under the export promotion schemes in Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14th September 2007 - HELD THAT - The debit of scrips does not suffice for discharge of liability of special additional duty (SAD) under Customs Tariff Act, 1975; in such circumstances, eligibility for refund would arise only upon discharge of liability without recourse to scrips and upon claim after sale of the goods. Thus, while the sales, which is not controverted, entitles them to refund, such refund is to be limited to that which was validly paid as duty. As far as scrips are concerned, only restoration could have been sought which is not an issue in this appeal. The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in ALLEN DIESELS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2016 (2) TMI 247 - DELHI HIGH COURT does not come to their assistance as public notice no. 06/RE/2013/2009-14 dated 18thApril 2013, issued by Director General of Foreign Trade Policy (DGFT), debarring recourse to scrips for discharge of duties on the particular import, was not relevant to facts that were pleaded therein. The appeal, seeking monetization of value of scrips , debited at the time of import, is dismissed.
Issues:
The judgment deals with the recovery of special additional duty (SAD) of customs on imports discharged by debit of 'scrips' under export promotion schemes in Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) for which refund was allowed but held to be ineligible to the extent not paid in cash. Details: The dispute revolves around the recovery of special additional duty (SAD) of customs on imports, amounting to &8377;4,43,973, which was discharged by debit of 'scrips' under the export promotion schemes in Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The appellant sought a refund as per notification no. 102/2007-Cus dated 14th September 2007, but it was held ineligible to the extent not paid in cash. The Learned Authorized Representative highlighted that the duty liability discharged in cash had already been refunded, while the rejected portion of the claim related to the discharge of liability by debit of 'scrips' issued under schemes in the FTP scheme. Considering the past decision in a similar dispute by the Tribunal, it was noted that the debit of 'scrips' does not suffice for the discharge of liability of special additional duty (SAD) under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The eligibility for a refund would only arise upon the discharge of liability without recourse to 'scrips' and upon claim after the sale of goods. The Tribunal emphasized that while the sales entitled the appellant to a refund, it should be limited to the amount validly paid as duty. The reliance on a High Court decision was deemed irrelevant as the 'public notice' debarring recourse to 'scrips' for duty discharge on the specific import was not applicable to the facts presented. Ultimately, the appeal seeking the monetization of the value of 'scrips' debited at the time of import was dismissed as the 'scrips' alone did not suffice for the discharge of the duty liability, and refund eligibility required the duty to be paid in cash without reliance on 'scrips'.
|
