9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 406 - AT - CustomsDenial of exemption claim - Ad-hoc Exemption notification order no. 3 of 2007 - Held that - The excess duty was paid in exercise of the exemption notification, whereas in the present case the appellant had claimed exemption, but the same was denied and the duty was paid under protest. I find that the facts of the case are also similar to the facts in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Tata Medical centre Trust - 2015 (1) TMI 68 - CESTAT MUMBAI , wherein the Division Bench of this Tribunal after referring and distinguishing the rulings of Hon ble Supreme Court in Flock (India) Ltd. (2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), in the case where duty was paid inadvertently - Assistant Commissioner has erred while passing the adjudication order as he has failed to take the documents already on recorded into notice while rejecting the claim of refund. Further, the Order-in-Original is also hit by limitation as the exemption granted by the Govt. of India, vide the latest letter dated 2.3.2009, which clearly shows that the exemption order granted earlier vide letter dated 11.1.2007, the validity period of the Ad-hoc exemption order may please be read as 31.12.2009 instead of 31.12.2008. By this letter, the Govt. had extended the exemption period with the retrospective effect, which is binding on officers of the Govt. of India. Accordingly, there is no error in the appellate order and the same is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 86/MCH/AC/REFUND(IMP)2012 2. Grant of specific exemption for import of goods 3. Rejection of exemption claim and subsequent refund application 4. Commissioner (Appeals) judgment allowing the refund claim 5. Revenue's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) decision 6. Interpretation of legal precedents in refund claims 7. Adjudication on the facts of the case and the validity of the exemption period Analysis: 1. The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 86/MCH/AC/REFUND(IMP)2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The respondent, M/s Global Vipassana Foundation, was granted an exemption from payment of Customs duty for importing specific items for their Meditation Centre construction. 2. The exemption was initially granted until 30.6.2007, extended to 31.12.2008, and further extended to 31.12.2009. The respondent filed a Bill of Entry for goods arriving in January/February 2009 under the exemption order, but the claim was rejected due to a pending extension application, leading to duty assessment and payment under protest. 3. Following this, the respondent filed a refund application, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority citing non-challenge of the assessment before the appellate authority, based on legal precedents like the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Flock India Ltd. 4. The respondent appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who found the refund claim genuine considering the extended exemption period until 31.12.2009, setting aside the Order-in-Original and directing the refund claim's processing on merits. 5. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, contending that the refund claim should not have been allowed as the assessment of the Bill of Entry was not challenged, contrary to legal rulings like Commissioner of Customs Vs. Eurotex India. The Revenue argued for setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. 6. The Tribunal considered legal precedents, including the ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, emphasizing the entitlement of refund claims under Section 27 of the Customs Act even without challenging the assessed Bill of Entry, as long as the duty was paid inadvertently. 7. The Tribunal found similarities with past cases like Commissioner of Customs Vs. Tata Medical Centre Trust, where duty was paid inadvertently under an exemption order. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, noting errors in the adjudication order and the binding effect of the extended exemption period until 31.12.2009, directing the refund with interest within six weeks. This comprehensive analysis outlines the key legal issues, the progression of events, the application of legal precedents, and the final adjudication by the Tribunal in favor of the respondent's refund claim.
|
