9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 487 - AT - CustomsRefund of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) demanded from the respondent after introduction of GST on imported goods - refund of duty paid on re-import - time limitation - Commissioner (Appeals) granted the refund. - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the respondent was not supposed to pay CVD after introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2007. However, it was paid at the relevant time due to system error and as insisted by the appellant. Moreover, limited ground raised by the appellants in the present Appeal is whether limitation under Section 26A is applicable in present case considering the facts and circumstances of the case. From the statutory provision it is clear that provisions of Section 26A is applicable while importing goods for home consumption and the provisions governing payment of duty on re-import of goods is as per the Notification No. 46/2017 dated 30.06.2017. Once the respondent satisfied the condition of said Notification by paying drawback drawn with interest, respondent was not liable to pay duty as demanded by the appellant. There is no merit in the present appeal and the appeal is dismissed.
Issues:
Refund of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) demanded post GST on imported goods; Applicability of Section 26A of the Customs Act on re-imported goods; Interpretation of Notification No. 46/2017 dated 30.06.2017; System error leading to payment of CVD; Limitation under Section 26A for refund application. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore pertained to the refund of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) demanded from the respondent after the introduction of GST on imported goods. The respondent had exported automobile components and availed drawback, but a portion of the exported components was returned by USA customers. Upon re-importation, the respondent repaid the drawback with interest and sought a waiver of other duties as per Notification No. 46/2017. Despite the introduction of CGST, a system error led the appellant to demand CVD from the respondent, which was paid to release the goods. Subsequently, the respondent sought a refund of the duty paid upon re-export, which was denied citing limitation under Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962. During the hearing, the appellant contended that the refund application was hit by limitation under Section 26A of the Customs Act. The respondent argued that the import was not for home consumption but a re-import, exempted from duty payment as per conditions in Notification No. 46/2017. The respondent maintained that the payment of CVD was made erroneously due to system error and was not a legitimate duty. Reference was made to a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka emphasizing the department's liability to refund excess customs duty without being bound by statutory limitations. The Tribunal observed that the respondent was not liable to pay CVD post-GST introduction, as it was paid erroneously and not as a legitimate duty. The limited ground of appeal focused on the applicability of the limitation under Section 26A in the present case. It was clarified that Section 26A applies to goods imported for home consumption, while duty on re-imported goods is governed by Notification No. 46/2017. Once the respondent met the conditions of the Notification by repaying the drawback, they were not obligated to pay the duty demanded by the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, emphasizing that the respondent was not liable to pay the CVD demanded by the appellant due to the system error and the conditions of Notification No. 46/2017. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 25.06.2024.
|
