9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1581 - AT - CustomsRefund of excess duty - excess duty paid was pointed out by assessment of Bill of Entry - N/N. 46/2011 as amended - section 27 of CA - Held that - In similar set of facts, Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Micromax Informa Tics Ltd., 2016 (3) TMI 431 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that refund claim can be preferred when the assessment is under EDI system and duty liabilities are discharged; wherein their Lordships interpreted the Provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim eligibility under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 for preferential rate of basic Customs Duty. Interpretation of relevant Notifications for concessional duty rates. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments in refund claims. Assessment order challenge through refund claim. Judicial precedents on refund claims without appeal against assessed Bill of Entry. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad involved a dispute regarding a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 for preferential rates of basic Customs Duty. The appellant had initially paid duty at a higher rate but later filed refund claims contending eligibility for concessional duty rates under specific Notifications. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim citing final assessment and the need for challenging assessments through higher authorities, referencing Supreme Court judgments. However, the First Appellate Authority ordered a remand, stating that the Bills of Entry were appealable orders and the appellant was eligible for the refund based on the presented Certificate of Origin and compliance with Customs Tariff Rules. The Department's failure to follow the remand directions led to further proceedings before the CESTAT. The CESTAT clarified the matter, emphasizing the need for a clear finding on the assessment order and refund eligibility under the relevant Notification. The subsequent de-novo proceedings by the First Appellate Authority confirmed the appellant's entitlement to the preferential duty rate and a refund of the excess amount paid. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the Supreme Court judgment in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. was directly applicable, contrary to the reliance on the High Court decision in Aman Medical Products Ltd. The CESTAT, after considering submissions, upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, noting the appellant's eligibility for reduced duty rates as per the Notification. The CESTAT referenced a similar High Court case to support the refund claim eligibility when duty liabilities were discharged under the EDI system. The judgment highlighted the changes in the Customs Act allowing refund claims regardless of protest payment and the authority's obligation to consider such claims. The CESTAT concluded that the impugned order was legal and correct, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. In summary, the CESTAT upheld the appellant's right to the refund claim for preferential duty rates, emphasizing compliance with Notifications and the Customs Act provisions. The judgment clarified the applicability of judicial precedents and the authority's duty to consider refund claims even without an appeal against the assessed Bill of Entry.
|
