2014 (5) TMI 243 - AT - Customs

Claim under Exemption Notification Penalty for non-claiming of Exemption - Operation of Double notifications - Whether an importer can be penalized for not having claimed exemption under Notification No. 29/2010-Cus at the time of importation by refusing to grant refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, when both the notifications were in operation on the date of importation and date of claiming refund Held that - Judgment in CCE Vs. Narayan Polyplast 2004 (11) TMI 112 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA followed - The decisions of the courts are to the effect that an assessee cannot be forced to avail any particular exemption In the case of Central Excise duty there is a consequence in paying duty on exempted goods because assessee will be able to pass on the duty incidence on the raw material and capital goods to the next stage by paying duty whereas such incidence cannot be passed on if the goods are exempted - Thus there is an adverse consequence to revenue when excise duty is paid on an exempted product. On 13-05-2005, the Legislature introduced the sub-section (1A) in section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - But no such explanation has been inserted in section 25 of Customs Act, 1962 - Further in case of SAD, payment at the time of importation and claiming refund at a later point of time can cause financial disadvantage to the importer and no such consequence to Revenue - Therefore, appeals filed by the Revenue on the above grounds are not maintainable Decided in favour of Revenue. Grant of Refund Held That - In respect of two Bills of Entries rejected by original adjudicating authority for the reason that the goods were imported through Sea Customs, Chennai but refund claim was filed before authorities in Air Customs Chennai - The Commissioner (Appeal) noted that the refund claims were not returned promptly by the authorities in Air Customs Relying upon CCE Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd 2012 (4) TMI 515 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - If the respondent file claim before the appropriate authority the claim should be processed by excluding the period for which the claims remained with Air Customs Authorities No reason found to interfere with the order of Commissioner (A) Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
Refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (‘SAD’) under Notification No. 102/07-Cus dated 14.09.2007; Re-assessment of bill of entry under Section 17 of the Customs Act; Claiming refund under Notification No. 102/07-Cus without challenging original assessment; Exemption under Notification No. 29/10-Cus and its impact on refund claims; Judicial decisions on importer's option to avail exemptions; Applicability of court decisions on Central Excise duty to Customs Act; Legislative provisions for exemption in Central Excise Act but not in Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/07-Cus:
The appeals revolved around 24 cases concerning the refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/07-Cus. The issue stemmed from the imposition of SAD under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985, and the subsequent refund claims by importers based on the provisions of this Notification.

2. Re-assessment and Challenging Original Assessment:
The primary contention was whether claiming a refund under Notification No. 102/07-Cus amounted to re-assessment of the bill of entry under Section 17 of the Customs Act. The argument was that importers should challenge the original assessment instead of seeking a refund to change the assessment done at the time of importation.

3. Exemption under Notification No. 29/10-Cus:
Another crucial issue was the impact of exemption under Notification No. 29/10-Cus on refund claims. Importers faced challenges when SAD was exempted under this notification, leading to questions about the importer's option to pay duty and subsequently claim a refund under Notification No. 102/07-Cus.

4. Judicial Decisions and Importer's Option:
The Commissioner (Appeals) based their decision on various judicial precedents, highlighting that importers cannot be forced to avail specific exemptions and that they have the discretion to choose the suitable notification for duty payment.

5. Applicability of Court Decisions and Legislative Provisions:
The Tribunal considered court decisions related to Central Excise duty and the legislative provisions introduced to address issues of exemption and duty payment. Importantly, the absence of a similar provision in the Customs Act raised questions about the importer's rights and obligations in choosing exemptions.

6. Decision and Disposal of Appeals:
After thorough deliberation, the Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue, emphasizing that the grounds raised were not maintainable. The judgment highlighted that the importer's right to claim a refund under Notification No. 102/07-Cus was not contingent on challenging the original assessment or availing specific exemptions.

7. Additional Issues and Disposition:
The judgment also addressed marginal issues raised by the adjudicating authority, ensuring that appropriate directions were given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in cases where original documents or invoices were questioned. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision in specific cases, emphasizing the importance of timely processing refund claims.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues surrounding the refund of SAD under specific notifications, importer's rights in choosing exemptions, and the applicability of court decisions and legislative provisions in customs matters.

← Previous Next →