9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of a refund claim due to misinterpretation of Notification No. 149/95 regarding exemption from countervailing duty on imported goods under an Advance Licence. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by the appellants who held an Advance Licence issued during the material period. The dispute arose from the misapplication of Notification No. 149/95, which exempted goods imported against an Advance Licence from both Basic Customs Duty and countervailing duty under specific conditions. The appellants, despite holding the Advance Licence issued after the specified date in the notification, paid the countervailing duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act when clearing the goods. The Department contested that the benefit of the notification was not applicable due to the timing of endorsement in the DEEC Book after the Bill of Lading. The lower authority upheld the rejection, citing the timing of the Bill of Lading and the nature of the Advance Licence issued under a different notification that did not allow exemption to countervailing duty. In the appellant's defense, it was argued that the Advance Licence was issued before the specified date in Notification No. 149/95, making them eligible for the exemption from countervailing duty. The counsel highlighted the significance of the Bill of Entry in determining the duty payment date and emphasized that the duty was mistakenly paid by the appellants. The appellant's compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 149/95 was stressed, and a refund claim was filed accordingly. The authorities were criticized for rejecting the claim without considering the legal provisions accurately. Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal acknowledged that the Advance Licence was issued in compliance with the requirements of Notification No. 149/95, entitling the appellants to the exemption from countervailing duty. The Tribunal concluded that the duty was erroneously paid by the appellants and thus ruled in favor of granting a refund. The decision emphasized that the appellants had not violated any conditions of the notification and were entitled to the refund as per the law. The Tribunal directed the refund of the countervailing duty to be processed in accordance with legal procedures, thereby disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellants.
|
