2000 (2) TMI 586 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of a refund claim based on Notification No. 149/95 exemption for countervailing duty on goods imported under an Advance Licence.

Analysis:
The appellants held an Advance Licence issued during the material period, subject to three Notifications. Notification No. 79/95 and No. 80/95 exempted goods from Basic Customs Duty, while Notification No. 149/95 exempted goods from both Basic Customs Duty and countervailing duty if the Advance Licence was issued on or after 19-9-95. The appellants, however, paid countervailing duty without considering the exemption under Notification No. 149/95. The Department contended that the exemption was not applicable as the DEEC Book was endorsed after the Bill of Lading. The Commissioner upheld the rejection, stating that the appellants did not merit the benefit of the exemption.

Arguing for the appellant, it was highlighted that the Advance Licence was issued before the relevant date, making them eligible for the Notification No. 149/95 exemption. The counsel emphasized that the Bill of Entry date determines duty payment, and as the inward entry was granted before the Bill of Entry presentation, countervailing duty was not required as per the Notification. The refund claim was filed due to an error in duty payment, which was incorrectly rejected. The appellant's compliance with Notification No. 149/95 was stressed, requesting the refund claim to be allowed.

The Department argued that the appellants were entitled to the exemption based on the prevailing Notifications at the licence issue date. They contended that goods already landed and presented for entry were not eligible for the Notification No. 149/95 benefit. The authorities' findings were reiterated.

Upon review, it was observed that the Advance Licence issuance date met the Notification No. 149/95 requirement, exempting the countervailing duty. The appellants' compliance entitled them to the refund of mistakenly paid duty. No other condition of the Notification was found violated, leading to the decision that the refund claim for countervailing duty was justified. The refund was to be processed according to the law, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.