2015 (5) TMI 197 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - refund of 4% additional duty of Customs (SAD) upon sale of goods imported - refund claim was rejected as not admissible and not maintainable on the ground of partial claim, as per Sl. No. 11 of Public Notice 74/2008-Cus dated 17.10.2008 read with Circular No. 16/2008-Cus dated 13.10.2008 - Held that - Second part refund claim in question is entertainable for refund of SAD, within the provisions of Section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act read with Notification No. 102/2007. I further hold, following the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. (2008 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT) that CBEC circular cannot curtail the scope of benefit available under the Notification. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefits. The adjudicating authority is directed to dispose of the refund claim within eight weeks from receipt/service of a copy of this order in the light of findings and observations herein. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against impugned order in appeal No. 168 (CRC-IIB)/2011 (JNCH) IMP 142
2. Refund claim for 4% additional duty of Customs (SAD) on imported goods
3. Rejection of refund claim by Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Commissioner (Appeals)
4. Interpretation of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus and CBEC Circular
5. Entertainability of second part refund claim
6. Applicability of Customs Act provisions on assessment for part of quantity in Bill of Entry

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s. Can-Pack India Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the impugned order upholding the rejection of their refund claim for 4% additional duty of Customs (SAD) on imported goods. The appellant claimed the refund under Section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act and Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Customs authorities rejected the claim due to a partial claim issue based on Public Notice 74/2008-Cus and Circular No. 16/2008-Cus. The appellant contended that procedural requirements cannot override substantive benefits accrued under a Notification, citing the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. vs. CCE, Belgaum.

The appellant argued that the Circular referred to by the authorities did not bar refund claims for part quantities covered in a Bill of Entry. The appellant emphasized that the Circular provides clarifications on acceptable situations for part quantity refund claims, which the authorities overlooked. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative relied on a previous decision and contended that there is no provision in the Customs Act for assessing part quantities in a Bill of Entry. They also stated that the appellant did not make a prior declaration at the time of the first refund claim, thus making them ineligible for the benefit of a specific Circular.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held that the second part refund claim for SAD was admissible under Section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act and Notification No. 102/2007. The Tribunal emphasized that the Circular cannot restrict the benefits available under the Notification, citing the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the adjudicating authority was directed to process the refund claim within eight weeks from the date of the Tribunal's order.