9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 60 - AT - CustomsDenial of refund claim - assessment was made provisional and the Appellant had directed to discharge export duty, considering the FOB value as transaction value instead of cum-duty price, and they had discharged duty accordingly, under protest - Withholding of cheques on the ground that review applications against the Assessment Orders were filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - Board has taken a policy decision on the assessment of export duty till 31.12.2008. It is stated that the existing method of assessment of computation of export duty and cesses would be continued, that is, by adopting the FOB price as the cum-duty price, till 31.12.2008. We do not find force in the observation of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the said practice of assessment relates to those Customs Houses only, where the practice of export-levy was adopted by considering the FOB price as the cum-duty price, and cannot be extended to other places. On the other hand, the very purpose of issuing the said Circular is to bring uniformity to the divergent assessment practice followed in the collection of Customs Export Duty across the country. - Circular is binding on the Department in view of the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of C.Ex. Vs. Dhiren Chemicals 2001 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding export duty assessment on Iron Ore Fines prior to 01.01.2009 based on Circular No. 18/2008-Cus. Analysis: The judgment involves sixteen appeals challenging the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the assessment of export duty on Iron Ore Fines. The exporters had filed seventeen shipping bills during the relevant period, and the assessment was initially provisional. The dispute arose when the duty was calculated based on the FOB value as cum-duty price, leading to the exporters filing refund claims for the excess duty paid. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned refunds for fifteen shipping bills but withheld four due to pending review applications. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeals, prompting the Assessee-Appellants to appeal to the forum. The Appellant argued that a Board's Circular clarified the assessment method until 31.12.2008, stating that the FOB price should be considered as cum-duty price for export duty computation. The Circular aimed to bring uniformity in assessment practices across Customs Houses. The Revenue's Special Counsel acknowledged the purpose of the Circular. The Tribunal analyzed the Circular and noted that until 31.12.2008, the existing practice of using FOB price as cum-duty price for export duty calculation should continue. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner (Appeals)' observation that this practice applied only to specific Customs Houses, emphasizing the Circular's intent to standardize assessment practices nationwide. Referring to a Mumbai Bench case, the Tribunal highlighted the Circular's binding nature on quasi-judicial authorities. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal affirmed the Circular's binding effect on the Department. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and set it aside, allowing the Appeals filed by the Appellant with any consequential relief as per law. The judgment emphasized the binding nature of the Circular and upheld its applicability in the assessment of export duty on Iron Ore Fines until 31.12.2008.
|
