2015 (3) TMI 163 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Reassement of Bill of entry after giving benefit of discount as per Tribunal's earlier order 2008 (10) TMI 527 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - Bar of limitation - held that - In view of the direction of the Tribunal, there is clear direction to the Revenue to give the benefit (Refund) without any formal application. I further hold that, in case of such directions to grant refund by the Appellate Authority, refund has to be allowed by Revenue, by giving effect of the order. An application by the appellant/assessee is only by way of reminder and not a fresh claim. - It is further directed that the concerned Customs Authority shall grant refund with interest as per Rules within four weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of imported machinery and applicability of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
2. Refund claim application timeline and limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 1: Valuation of imported machinery and applicability of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the valuation of a New Yeast Wrapping Machine imported by M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd. from Germany. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs disallowed a discount given by the German seller, leading to an increase in the declared value of the machine. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, citing the absence of evidence regarding the discount's availability to all buyers. However, the Tribunal, in a previous appeal, ruled in favor of the importer, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal due to lack of sustainable grounds.

Issue 2: Refund claim application timeline and limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962:
Following the Tribunal's order allowing the appeal, the importer filed a refund claim application, which was received by the Customs Authority. The Revenue contested the refund claim, arguing that it was filed beyond the stipulated time limit of six months from the date of the Tribunal's order. The Revenue contended that the limitation for claiming consequential refund starts from the date of the original order, not the date of reassessment. The importer, on the other hand, relied on the Tribunal's ruling in a previous case and argued that the limitation should start from the date of reassessment. The Tribunal held that in cases where the appellate authority directs a refund, the Revenue must comply without requiring a formal application. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the Customs Authority was directed to grant the refund with interest within a specified timeframe.

This judgment addressed the issues of valuation under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and the timeline for filing refund claims under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of evidence in valuation disputes and clarified the starting point for calculating the limitation period for refund claims, emphasizing compliance with appellate orders for granting refunds.