2013 (12) TMI 177 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess duty paid Imports under DFIA scheme in terms of Notification No. 40/2006-Cus., dated 1-5-2006 - Refund claim on basis of exemption from payment of Basic Customs Duty as well as Additional Customs Duty - Held that - the refund claim of the appellant was maintainable under Section 27 of the Customs Act and the non-filing of the appeal against the assessed bill of entry does not deprive the appellant to file its claim for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and which claim will fall under clause (ii) of sub section (1) of Section 27 - Following decision of AMAN MEDICAL PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI 2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT - refund allowed

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on failure to challenge assessment; Conditional notification dispute; Applicability of previous court decisions on refund claims.

Refund Claim Rejection based on Failure to Challenge Assessment:
The appellants imported goods under the DFIA scheme and filed a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid during import. The claim was rejected as the assessments were not challenged. The advocate argued that without a dispute on assessment, refund claims can still be valid. He cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Aman Medical Products Ltd. and a Tribunal decision in Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. to support this contention.

Conditional Notification Dispute:
The refund claims were rejected on the basis that Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. was conditional, and the appellants failed to submit written arguments after a personal hearing. The Tribunal found that the claim of the notification being conditional was incorrect, citing a previous decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessing officer neglected to consider the unconditional exemption under the notification, leading to an erroneous levy of Additional Duty.

Applicability of Previous Court Decisions on Refund Claims:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief. It held that the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Tribunal supported the appellants' position, as there was no dispute during assessment, and the duty was paid without protest. Therefore, the Tribunal applied the principles established in previous court decisions to support the appellants' claim for a refund.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to the rejection of refund claims, disputes over conditional notifications, and the applicability of previous court decisions on refund claims. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the importance of considering unconditional exemptions under notifications and the lack of a dispute during the assessment process in determining the validity of refund claims.