9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 686 - AT - CustomsRefund of the export duty - rectification of defects - rejection of refund claim on the ground that the initial assessment order had reached the finality and it has not been challenged in the appeal proceedings - Held that - As was the established practice during the relevant period as confirmed by the CBEC Circular No. 18/2008-Cus the respondent was entitled to the benefit of cum duty value during the relevant period. On the question of reassessment being necessary for claiming the refund, it is found that in this case there is no requirement of reassessment as there were only clerical and arithmetical errors in the shipping bill namely (a) taking the wet MT iron ore instead of the dry MT and (b) taking the transaction value for calculating export duty instead of taking this as the cum duty value. Both these defects can be easily corrected under Section 154 Customs Act, 1964 - there is no infirmity in the First Appellate Authority sanctioning the refund while correcting to clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the Shipping Bills. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Refund of excess export duty paid due to clerical errors in shipping bills. 2. Interpretation of CBEC Circular No. 18/2008-Cus regarding the treatment of FOB price as cum duty price. 3. Applicability of judgments in cases of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. and Flock India Pvt. Ltd. to the present case. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The Respondent, an exporter of iron ore fines, paid excess export duty due to clerical errors in mentioning the quantity in the invoice and shipping bills. The lower authority rejected the refund claim citing finality of the initial assessment order. However, the First Appellate Authority allowed the refund, considering the errors as clerical and arithmetical, not requiring reassessment. The Revenue contended that the assessments were not challenged or reopened, relying on previous judgments. The First Appellate Authority's decision was upheld based on Section 154 of the Customs Act, allowing correction of clerical errors without reassessment. Issue 2: The Respondent claimed refunds based on CBEC Circular No. 18/2008-Cus, treating FOB price as cum duty price. The lower authority rejected this claim, but the First Appellate Authority accepted it. The Revenue argued that the circular did not apply as the export occurred before its issuance, and no pending assessment issue existed. However, the Tribunal found that the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of the circular as the practice during the relevant period was to consider FOB value as cum duty value, correcting the clerical errors without reassessment. Issue 3: The Revenue contended that the judgments in cases of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. and Flock India Pvt. Ltd. applied, as the assessments were not challenged or reopened. The Respondent argued that these judgments did not apply since there was no appealable assessment order challenged. The Tribunal found that the errors in the shipping bills were clerical and arithmetical, not requiring reassessment, and upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to allow the refund based on the correction of these defects. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to grant the refund, considering the clerical errors in the shipping bills, the application of CBEC Circular No. 18/2008-Cus, and the absence of the need for reassessment. The judgments in previous cases were distinguished based on the specific circumstances of the present case, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals.
|
