9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 246 - AT - CustomsRefund of customs duty - Held that - Higher quantum of duty was paid by the appellant without their being dispute on the rate of duty or otherwise - higher rate was paid in ignorance of notification which allowed him payment of concessional rate of duty - payment of higher rate before clearance of goods from the warehouse - Bills of Entry filed prior to the date of revision in tariff value and rate of duty cannot be held to be involving any dispute inasmuch as at that point of time, the lower tariff value or lower rate of duty was not holding the field and was not available - there was no notification in the field and no dispute on the same refund allowed
Issues:
1. Refund claims against assessment of Ex-Bond Bills of Entry. 2. Entertaining refund claims without challenging the assessment first. 3. Applicability of the decision in Priya Blue Industries case. 4. Interpretation of the law regarding payment of higher duty in ignorance of notification. 5. Dispute on the rate of duty and tariff valuation. Analysis: Issue 1: Refund claims against assessment of Ex-Bond Bills of Entry The appeal involved M/s. Ashwin Vanaspati Industries Pvt. Ltd. challenging Order-in-Appeal No. 324/2005 regarding refund claims against the assessment of Ex-Bond Bills of Entry. The Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) citing lack of physical verification and jurisdictional overreach by the adjudicating authority in granting refunds without challenging the assessment first. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on precedents emphasizing the need to challenge the assessment before claiming a refund against it. Issue 2: Entertaining refund claims without challenging the assessment first The main contention in the appeal was the reliance on the decision in Priya Blue Industries case by the appellant. The appellant argued that the assessment of the Bill of Entry should be treated as an appealable order before claiming a refund of excess customs duty paid. The appellant disputed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on the interpretation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Priya Blue Industries case. Issue 3: Applicability of the decision in Priya Blue Industries case The appellant argued that the decision in Priya Blue Industries case should not apply in the present scenario as there was no assessment order in dispute. Citing the Delhi High Court's judgment in Aman Medical Products case, the appellant contended that the higher duty was paid due to ignorance of a notification allowing for a concessional rate of duty. The appellant sought to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order based on this distinction. Issue 4: Interpretation of the law regarding payment of higher duty in ignorance of notification The Tribunal examined the facts where the appellants imported crude palm oil and filed Ex. Bond Bills of Entry. The dispute arose from the payment of higher duty due to ignorance of a notification reducing the tariff value and duty rate. The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the rate of duty applicable at the time of goods removal from the warehouse and the subsequent application for a refund of excess duty paid. Issue 5: Dispute on the rate of duty and tariff valuation The Tribunal analyzed whether the law declared in the Priya Blue Industries case applied to the present situation. It noted that the higher duty was paid without a dispute on the rate of duty, solely due to ignorance of the notification allowing for a lower rate. The Tribunal found no dispute between the appellant and the Revenue, concluding that the case involved a simple payment of a higher rate before goods clearance. Applying the Delhi High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and reinstating the original adjudicating authority's decision.
|
