9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Admissibility of set off of countervailing duty paid on imported rubber accelerators. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing tyres, tubes, and flaps, sought set off of countervailing duty paid on imported raw materials, specifically rubber accelerators. They imported Vulkacit-MBTS from M/s. Sun Export Corporation on High Seas Sale basis. The appellants faced a delay in submitting duty paying documents due to misplacement by the transporter during transit. 2. The Assistant Collector rejected the request for set off, citing non-compliance with statutory requirements and delay in submission of duty paying documents. The lower Appellate authority upheld the rejection, emphasizing the failure to comply with the law's requirements. 3. The appellants argued that Rule 56A allows credit of duty paid on inputs upon producing original duty paying documents without specifying a time limit. They contended that the delay was exceptional due to document misplacement, and they promptly submitted D-3 intimations upon material receipt. 4. The Department's representative highlighted discrepancies in document correlation and argued that the delay exceeded permissible limits as per Trade Notice guidelines and relevant case law. The appellants referenced a Tribunal judgment applicable to their case. 5. Upon review, the Tribunal acknowledged the delay in submitting duty paying documents but noted timely submission of D-3 intimations. The Tribunal referenced a Trade Notice regarding document submission timelines and a previous case involving a similar delay in document submission. 6. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the cited judgment regarding money credit under Rule 57K, emphasizing that the appellants timely filed D-3 intimations, surpassing general permission under Rule 56A(2). The Tribunal also referenced a previous case to support the appellants' position. 7. Conclusively, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing duty paying documents did not render the claim time-barred under Section 11B CESA, 1944, as the appellants submitted D-3 intimations within the stipulated time. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector for document verification. 8. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remand, emphasizing that the appellants' claim for set off of countervailing duty was not time-barred, pending document verification by the Assistant Collector.
|
