9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refund claim for enhanced auxiliary duty of customs and interest due to budgetary change. Denial of clearance on 28-2-1986. Application of correct rate of duty. Legal obligations fulfilled by presenting Bill of Entry. Trade Notice requirement for advance filing. Unjust enrichment theory. Applicability of Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Analysis: The appeal was against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) regarding a refund claim for enhanced auxiliary duty of customs and interest due to a budgetary change. The appellants filed a refund claim on 10-3-1986 for Rs. 9,57,067.32, stating they had to pay a higher rate of duty on 3-3-1986 due to denial of clearance on 28-2-1986. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim citing non-compliance with Trade Notice 121/83 requiring advance filing of Bill of Entry. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating the correct rate of duty was levied as per law on 3-3-1986, the date of actual removal from the warehouse. The appellants argued that by filing the Bill of Entry and paying duty, they fulfilled their legal obligations, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. They contended that denial of clearance on 28-2-1986 was unlawful, citing the Bombay High Court decision in Harish Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. They also argued against the theory of unjust enrichment, citing the Calcutta High Court decision in Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' reasoning, emphasizing Section 15(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the refusal of clearance on 28-2-1986 based on the Trade Notice was not justified. Citing the Bombay High Court decision, the Tribunal held that duty payment on 28-2-1986 should have led to clearance on the same day, rejecting the application of post-budget increased rates. The Tribunal also applied the Supreme Court decision, stating that the date of actual removal is when legal obligations are fulfilled, in this case, on 28-2-1986. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellants based on the legal precedents cited and the factual circumstances of the case.
|
