9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 162/92 regarding exemption of duty on imported capital goods. 2. Validity of producing a bond at the time of clearance for claiming exemption. 3. Rejection of refund claim based on the timing of bond production. 4. Applicability of previous court decisions on bond execution and duty payment. 5. Entitlement to refund of duty paid and procedural requirements for the same. Analysis: 1. The appellant imported moulds and sought partial duty exemption under Notification 162/92, which exempts capital goods for exporters fulfilling specific obligations. One condition is producing a bond at clearance from the licensing authority as per Export and Import Policy paragraph 45. 2. The Assistant Commissioner denied exemption as the bond value was short by approximately Rs. 2.75 lakhs compared to the licence value. The goods were cleared on payment of assessed duty, leading to a subsequent refund claim with an additional bank guarantee to cover the shortfall. 3. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund, citing the bond should have been produced at clearance per the notification, not post-clearance. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appeal to the Tribunal for review. 4. The appellant argued that duty payment precedes bond execution, and refund claims stem from reassessment, not initial clearance. Citing precedents like L.M. Ven Moppes Diamond Tools India Ltd. v. Government of India and Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CC, the appellant contended that bond production post-duty payment should be accepted for reassessment. 5. Relying on the decisions mentioned, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the refund of duty paid. The appellant must comply with Section 27(2) of the Act to prove non-passing of duty incidence to receive the refund. The case is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for further proceedings, considering both parties' submissions.
|
