9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 178 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - SAD - Commissioner (Appeals) in her order rejected the appeal surprisingly altogether on a different ground assuming that differential amount of SAD for which the appellant is seeking refund was debited through DEPB script, therefore the refund is not admissible - appellant filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) only prayed that the refund was filed for the total quantity of the goods imported and sold, whereas in the application only part of the SAD was mentioned and part amount of ₹ 14,06,203.88 which was paid in cash through separate TR 6 Challan could not be mentioned through oversight, therefore their prayer before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that such mistake may be allowed to be corrected under section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) has gravely erred in deciding the appeal altogether a different issue of DEPB, which was never into existence. From the submission, it is clear that the amount of ₹ 14,06,203.88 SAD claimed as a refund by the appellant was admittedly paid in cash against bill of entry No. 94335 dated 13/4/2010. Thus, there was a mistake occurred on the part of appellant that instead of both the aforesaid amount, they mistakenly mentioned only amount of ₹ 5,39,837.20 and ₹ 14,06,203.88 was left to be mentioned in the refund application. Consequently, it was skipped by the Asst. Commissioner also that against the total SAD payment of ₹ 19,46,041.08 towards total quantity of 2023.70 MT only SAD of ₹ 5,39,836.20 was sanctioned. In this fact I agree that the appellant, is, in principle, entitled for the refund of left over amount of ₹ 14,06,203,88 also but the same can be decided only after rectification of the mistake in the refund. I also agree that there is apparent mistake in refund and same can be rectified under Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962. Mistake occurred in the present case by which the appellant suffered non sanction of refund of SAD of ₹ 14,06,203.88 can be rectified under Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the matter limited to refund of amount of ₹ 14,06,203.88 is remanded to adjudicating authority with liberty to the appellant to make an application under Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority is directed to dispose of such application, if filed by the appellant under section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 in accordance with law. - Appeal disposed of.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported goods. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Rejection of Refund Claim by Commissioner (Appeals) The appellant imported "Hot Rolled Plates" and filed a refund claim for 4% SAD amounting to Rs. 36,85,608 under notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The adjudicating authority sanctioned a refund of Rs. 36,85,608, but the appellant claimed an additional refund of Rs. 14,06,203.88 for a bill of entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal based on the misconception that the amount was debited through DEPB script, making it inadmissible. However, the appellant argued that the error was due to oversight in mentioning the total SAD amount in the refund application. The appellant sought correction under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, citing precedents supporting rectification of clerical errors. Issue 2: Arguments of the Parties The appellant's counsel contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in focusing on the DEPB script issue, which was not raised initially. The Asst. Commissioner acknowledged that the amount in question was paid in cash, not through DEPB script. The appellant's claim for rectification under Section 154 was supported by legal precedents allowing correction of clerical errors for refund claims arising from such mistakes. Issue 3: Judicial Precedents and Legal Interpretation The Tribunal analyzed the case law, including CC (I) vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd. and VST Industries Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai, emphasizing the authority's power to rectify errors under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's entitlement to the refund of Rs. 14,06,203.88 was evident from the records, as the SAD payment was made in cash but mistakenly omitted from the refund application. The Tribunal emphasized the need for rectification under Section 154 to correct the oversight and grant the appellant the due refund amount. Issue 4: Tribunal's Decision and Order After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal based on the DEPB script issue, which was not substantiated. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's claim for rectification under Section 154 to correct the clerical error in the refund application. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, directing them to consider the appellant's application under Section 154 and sanction the refund of Rs. 14,06,203.88 accordingly. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the correction of the oversight under the relevant legal provisions. This detailed analysis outlines the key issues, arguments, legal interpretations, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the rejection of the refund claim for SAD, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.
|
