9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refund claim rejection by Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi for Rs. 3,92,932.05 - Transfer of Tetracycline Hydrochloride from EPZ to DTA unit - Compliance with Notification No. 133/94-Cus. - Permission for clearance from EPZ - Entitlement to refund of Customs duty - Excess payment refund claim of Rs. 79,550.80. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by M/s. Paam Pharmaceuticals against the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 3,92,932.05 by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The dispute arose from the transfer of 850 kgs. of Tetracycline Hydrochloride from their EPZ unit to their DTA unit, which was part of 1000 kgs. imported at nil rate of Customs duty. The appellants claimed this transfer was in return for material received from the DTA unit earlier. However, the authorities rejected the claim due to lack of evidence regarding accounts and permission for clearance from EPZ. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appellants to challenge the refund of Rs. 79,550.80, alleged to be an excess payment. The main contention raised by the appellants was that they were entitled to a refund under Notification No. 133/94-Cus. Paragraph 4 of the notification allowed clearance from EPZ on payment of duty based on the value at the time of import and prevailing rates. The appellants argued that despite paying duty under pressure, they should be refunded as per the notification. On the other hand, the JDR reiterated the grounds for rejecting the refund application as per the lower authorities' orders. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the appellants had not complied with the terms of the notification regarding obtaining permission for sale of imported material in DTA. The Assistant Commissioner noted the absence of permission from the Development Commissioner, which was crucial for such clearances. The Tribunal agreed that the permission on the Gate Pass did not substitute the required permission from the Development Commissioner. Therefore, the clearance without following the notification's provisions led to the rejection of the refund claim. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow the appellants to contest the refund of Rs. 79,550.80 for excess payment. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, except for the part concerning the excess payment refund claim. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with notification requirements for clearances from EPZ and emphasized the need for proper permissions to support refund claims in such cases.
|
