9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 384 - AT - CustomsDenial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - Condition No. 29 of the Notification No. 21/2002 provides that if the goods are imported by ONGC or by the subcontractor of the licencee, he must produce to the Dy. Commissioner of Customs or to the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, at the time of importation, a certificate from the authorized officer of DGH, Ministry of Petroleum, to the effect that the imported goods are required for petroleum operations and imported under the licence for mining, as the case may be. In the present case, there is no dispute that the appellant had not produced the ECs issued by the DGH at the time of importation. It is seen that the goods were cleared on payment of duty as per the direction of the Hon ble Delhi High Court. - Following decision of assessee s own previous in 2011 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Refund claims rejected on grounds of time limitation and failure to challenge assessment orders. 2. Interpretation of conditions for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. 3. Compliance with court directions regarding payment of duty under protest and submission of Essentiality Certificates. 4. Applicability of previous judgments by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Consideration of duty payment under protest and limitation period for refund claims. Analysis: Issue 1: Refund claims rejected on grounds of time limitation and failure to challenge assessment orders. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims citing that they were filed beyond the six-month limit and were not challenged as per the judgment in Priya Blue's case. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The Ld. Advocate argued that the claims were related to importation for exploration of petroleum products under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and were in compliance with court orders. Issue 2: Interpretation of conditions for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The condition No. 29 of the notification required the importer to produce an Essentiality Certificate from the Director General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) at the time of importation for goods required for petroleum operations. The appellants failed to produce these certificates initially but cleared the goods on payment of duty under the direction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Issue 3: Compliance with court directions regarding payment of duty under protest and submission of Essentiality Certificates. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed the customs authorities to consider and dispose of refund claims based on Essentiality Certificates. The appellants paid the duty under protest as per court orders. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also issued directions for consideration of refund claims based on Essentiality Certificates. Issue 4: Applicability of previous judgments by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgments by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the customs authorities to consider refund claims based on Essentiality Certificates. The Tribunal found that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs erroneously rejected the refund claim without considering the court directions. Issue 5: Consideration of duty payment under protest and limitation period for refund claims. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in light of the court decisions. It was noted that some claims might be barred by limitation due to failure to pay duty under protest. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide the proceedings within six months from the date of the order. This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, court directions, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
|
