2016 (12) TMI 472 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim - difference between excise duty leviable on like goods and the additional customs duty under a Notification no.12/2012 CE, read with Section 3 (1) of the Customs Tariffs Act - Held that - In SRF Limited s case 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT , the condition applicable i.e. No.20 relied upon by the revenue was that credit should not have been availed of under CENVAT for inputs or capital goods used in the manufacture of dutiable goods in India - The Supreme Court rejected the contentions identical with the present one espoused by the revenue in the present case. The petition has to succeed and direction is issued to the respondent to process the refund claims and pass appropriate orders, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has filed supporting certificates in the form of Chartered Accountant s Certificate and other documents, claiming that the benefit was not passed on to the consumer. The respondents are directed to pay the appropriate refund amount together with interest payable till the date of actual payment, within three weeks.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of petitioner regarding rejection of refund applications under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The petitioner imported mobile phones and paid additional duty of customs at a rate equivalent to excise duty, without availing CENVAT credit. The petitioner claimed a refund based on a notification and relevant customs tariff sections. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund application citing a Supreme Court judgment in Motiram Tolaram vs. Union of India, 1999 (112) ELT 749 (SC).

Analysis:
The petitioner argued that the rejection of the refund application is unsustainable in light of the Constitution bench ruling in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (1999) 5 SCC 15 and recent decisions in Aidek Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2015 SCC Online SC 314 and SRF Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, 2015 (318) ELT 607 (SC).

Analysis:
Referring to SRF Limited's case, the condition for availing the benefit was that no CENVAT credit should have been availed for inputs or capital goods used in the manufacture of dutiable goods in India.

Analysis:
The court cited various judgments to support the petitioner's claim, emphasizing that the denial of benefits based on inadmissibility of CENVAT credit is not valid after the judgments in Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs and Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union of India. The court highlighted the interpretation of Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act and the conditions for levy of additional duty.

Analysis:
The court noted that its decision was consistent with previous judgments like YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Vishal Video & Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others. The court directed the respondent to process the refund claims and pay the appropriate amount with interest within three weeks.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the key arguments and legal principles applied by the court.