2024 (11) TMI 66 - AT - Customs

Entitlement to refund of the CVD - exemption granted under exemption Notification dated 13.10.2017 - adjudicating authority rejected the refund on the ground that Notification in question is not applicable retrospectively in the appellant s case and the judgments relied upon by the appellant is not applicable as the appellant was not the party in the said cases before the Hon ble High court, HELD THAT - Appellant is engaged in manufacturing of Stainless Steel coils against Advance Authorisation Scheme for the purpose of manufacturing and therefore export of the same as per the Advance Authorization Scheme and also the Foreign Trade policy all kinds of duties leviable under Custom Tariff Act are exempted. Government of India vide Notification No. 1/2017-Customs dated 07.09.2017 imposed CVD @ 18.95% under Section 9 of Customs Tariff Act, but thereafter, trade associations made various representations and thereafter, the government vide Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017 exempted the CVD. DGFT also issued Notification No. 33/2015-2020 dated 13.10.2017 to exempt CVD under Advance Authorization Scheme. Government rectified its mistake vide Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017 exempted the CVD. The question arose before the various High Courts regarding the retrospective applicability of Notification No. 79/2017 and the various High Courts in various decisions cited granted the benefit of Notification in similar circumstances. The refund has been rejected on the ground that the applicant was not the party in the said case before the High Court as held that Notification No. 79/2017 dated 13.10.2017 has retrospective applicability. Thus, allow the appeal of the appellant and hold that the appellant is entitled to refund claim of CVD along with interest as prescribed by law. Appeal is accordingly allowed on the above terms.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of CVD under Advance Authorization Scheme; Retrospective applicability of Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017; Interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020; Scope of appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals); Applicability of Section 149 of the Act.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Stainless Steel Utensils and registered with the GST department, imported goods under Advance Authorization Scheme, facing CVD and IGST levies. The appellant sought provisional assessment with a bank guarantee, but goods were assessed finally. The dispute arose due to the exemption of CVD under Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017, which was not applied retrospectively by the adjudicating authority, leading to the rejection of the refund claim amounting to Rs. 16,31,373/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, prompting the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the levy of CVD under Section 9 was against the government's intention, rectified by Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017, exempting CVD under Advance Authorization Scheme. The appellant relied on judgments, including the Delhi High Court's decision granting retrospective benefit of the notification. The appellant emphasized fulfilling export obligations and submitted Export obligation discharge certificate. The appellant contended that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the appeal's scope by addressing the maintainability of the refund claim.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, manufacturing Stainless Steel coils under Advance Authorisation Scheme for export, was entitled to CVD refund as per the exemption notifications. Notably, the government rectified its mistake by exempting CVD through Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017, which various High Courts recognized retrospectively. The Tribunal, considering precedents, allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the refund of CVD amounting to Rs. 16,31,373/- with interest. The Tribunal's decision was based on the retrospective applicability of the notification and the appellant's compliance with the scheme's requirements.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing the retrospective nature of the exemption notification and the appellant's entitlement to the CVD refund under the Advance Authorization Scheme. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to government policies and rectifications in customs matters, ultimately granting the appellant the relief sought in the appeal.