2016 (6) TMI 706 - AT - Customs

Claim of refund of excess duty of customs paid - exemption of customs duty granted vide Notification No.12/2012-Cus, dated 17-03-2012 as amended - The claim was rejected by the Original authority stating that appellant has not fulfilled Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 and also has not challenged the assessment before any appellate Forum - Held that - appellant is eligible for refund. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Import of sun flower cake, exemption of customs duty, refund claim rejection based on non-fulfillment of Customs Act requirements, challenge of assessment before appellate forum.

Analysis:
The appellants imported sun flower cake but failed to consider the exemption of customs duty granted under specific notifications, resulting in an excess duty payment of ?7,29,846. Their refund claim was rejected by the Original authority citing non-compliance with Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and failure to challenge the assessment before any appellate forum as per the Priya Blue Industries case. The appeal was made to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeal.

The Tribunal had previously addressed a similar issue in the case of Shyam Solvex (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad II, where it favored the appellant based on the precedent set in Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills Vs CCE Nagpur. Following the same rationale, the Tribunal in this case found the appellant eligible for a refund, overturning the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to legal requirements and precedent in customs duty matters, ensuring fair treatment for importers seeking refunds.

Judgment:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim for excess customs duty paid due to the failure to consider applicable exemptions. The decision highlighted the significance of legal compliance and adherence to established precedents in customs duty matters, ensuring justice and fairness in import-related disputes.