2012 (9) TMI 145 - HC - Customs

Refund of the extra duty deposit by the assessee Held that - When the assessee authority held that the customs duty paid by the assessee was proper and no additional duty need be paid, they were under an obligation to refund this additional amount which was collected, which had no basis - order is legal and valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference - appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Challenge to Tribunal's order directing refund of extra duty deposit.
3. Interpretation of provisions under Customs Act, 1962 regarding refund of extra duty deposit.
4. Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the case.
5. Validity of the Tribunal's decision on refund of additional value insisted upon by the department.

Analysis:

1. The judgment begins by addressing the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal. The court accepts the cause shown in the affidavit for condonation of delay and allows the appeal.

2. The revenue challenges the Tribunal's order directing the refund of the extra duty deposit by the assessee. The dispute arises from the relationship between the importer and a foreign company, influencing the invoice price due to technical know-how fees and royalty. The assessing authority had loaded the invoice value by 10.58% for customs duty purposes, a decision upheld by the appellate authority.

3. The appellate tribunal later set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the assessing authority. The assessing authority rejected the assessee's refund claim as time-barred, considering it as an extra duty deposit rather than customs duty. The appellate authority held that the time limit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not apply, and refund could be granted under Section 18(1) and 18(2) after final assessment and cancellation of PD bonds.

4. The court notes that the refund sought was not for excise duty but for the additional value insisted upon by the department, which had no basis. The appellate authorities relied on previous tribunal judgments to support the decision that Section 27 was not applicable in this case. Therefore, the impugned order was deemed legal and valid, with no substantial question of law for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

5. In conclusion, the court upholds the Tribunal's decision on the refund issue, emphasizing that the additional amount collected without a proper basis should be refunded. The judgment highlights the proper interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the application of legal principles in determining the refund eligibility in this case.