9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 64/94-Cus. regarding customs duty on imported goods. 2. Eligibility for refund of excess customs duty paid. 3. Passing on the duty incidence to the customer. 4. Prematurity of the refund claim due to pending litigation. Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the customs duty paid in excess on imported goods by the appellant, which were subsequently supplied to another party. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the excess duty paid was not chargeable under Notification No. 64/94-Cus. dated 1-3-1994, leading to a series of litigations between the appellant and the recipient of the goods. The issue was whether the duty amount was payable by the end buyer, and as the matter was pending before the High Court, the appeal was dismissed as premature. 2. The appellants claimed the benefit of concessional duty rates under Notification No. 64/94-Cus. for importing parts of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEGs). Despite importing parts covered by the exemption notification, they had to clear the consignment by paying excess duty due to time constraints. The Asst. Commissioner initially rejected their refund claim, stating the goods were ineligible for the benefit of the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the claim, but subsequent refund requests were rejected due to pending litigation with the recipient denying liability. 3. The appellant argued that they had not passed on the duty incidence to the customer, supported by a firm price agreement with no provision for upward variation. They contended that their suit against the recipient was solely for the recovery of the duty amount and did not indicate passing on the liability. However, the authorities viewed the suit as an intention to pass on the duty liability, leading to the rejection of the refund claim as premature. 4. The central issue was whether the appellant should be granted a refund under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act while the question of duty liability was pending before the High Court. The Tribunal held that seeking reimbursement through a lawsuit indicated an intention to pass on the duty incidence, justifying the refusal of the refund claim until the High Court resolved the matter. The Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the appeal, emphasizing the need to await the High Court's decision before granting any refund. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities due to the pending litigation and the appellant's intention to seek reimbursement of the duty paid from the customer. The ruling highlighted the importance of awaiting the High Court's decision on the duty liability issue before granting any refund.
|
