9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1264 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus - Procedural lapse - Importing goods on payment of appropriate Countervailing Duties (CVD) and 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) - import duties through DEPB Script - appellant has filed multiple refund claims against one bill of entry - HELD THAT - We observe that the Department has applied the said condition stating that the Appellant has filed two separate claims on the same Bills of Entry. It has to be noted here that under the given circumstances the application of this procedural requirement seems trivial to the purposes of the said issue as in the present case the payment of 4% SAD was done through two mediums by DEPB Script and Cash which was the sole reason behind the Appellant filing two claims. The conditions under the said circular act as a procedural safeguard that can be differentiated based on the facts and circumstances of a case. It would be contrary to the essence of the circular to deny the substantial benefit of refund only on a procedural requirement when it is silent towards such issues like that in case of the Appellant. The scope of benefit entailed under a Notification cannot be curtailed solely based on the claims as made in the present case. It would render the effectiveness of a Notification redundant when all other essential conditions required for the said purposes have been adhered with which in the present case has been complied with by the Appellant. The intent of the Notification has been given priority over the executive application of a Circular. Thus, we are of the considered view that the benefits under Notification No.102/2007-Customs should not be denied to the Appellant thereby the Appellant is entitled for refund claim. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid in cash. 2. Procedural compliance with Notification No.102/2007 - Customs and Customs Circular No. 06/2008 - Cus. Summary: Issue 1: Eligibility for Refund of 4% SAD Paid in Cash The Appellant, M/s Hamilton Houseware Pvt. Ltd., engaged in importing goods and paying appropriate Countervailing Duties (CVD) and 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD), sought a refund of the 4% SAD paid in cash. The Department denied the claim on the grounds that two refund applications were filed for the same Bill of Entries within the same financial year, allegedly violating Notification No.102/2007 - Cus. The Appellant argued that they had fulfilled all conditions under the Notification and that the refund should not be considered erroneous as the first claim was granted post verification and the second was granted by Order in Original No. 45/14-15 dated 14.06.2014. Issue 2: Procedural Compliance with Notification and Circular The Department contended that the Appellant violated para 4.2 of Customs Circular No. 06/2008 - Cus, which stipulates that only a single claim against a particular Bill of Entry should be filed within one year. The Appellant filed two separate claims due to payments made through DEPB Script and Cash. The Tribunal observed that the procedural requirement should not override the substantial benefit of the refund. The intent of the Notification should take precedence over the procedural stipulations of the Circular. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal highlighted that the procedural conditions under the Circular are safeguards and should not negate the substantial benefit of the Notification. The Tribunal referenced several cases, including Mitutoyo South Asia Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs, Ambey Sales v Commissioner of Customs, and Devki Nandan J Gupta v Commissioner of Customs, which supported the view that procedural lapses should not deny substantial benefits if all essential conditions are met. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the benefits under Notification No.102/2007 - Customs should not be denied to the Appellant, and the Appellant is entitled to the refund claim. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Order: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2024.
|
