Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (12) TMI 250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Chitra Venkataramart, J. Shri Joseph Prabakar, for the Petitioner, Ms. Mallika Srinivasan, for the Respondent. [Order] - The petitioner has sought for an issuance of a writ of certiorari- fled mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated 17-6-2009 and to direct the second respondent to refund the EDD of Rs.1,95,275/- along with interest from 6-6-2008. 2. The petitioner herein engaged in the manufacture of Power Rectifier System. The petitioner company imports goods from its Parent company. The import transactions of the petitioner company from 'related persons' namely from parent company and group companies were examined under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation (Determination of V .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sistant Commissioner of Customs, Special Valuation Branch, passed an order on 6- 6-2008 accepting the value quoted by the petitioner as transaction value in terms of Rule 3(3)(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules that all pending assessments be finalised. The copy of the order was sent to the second respondent. In respect of certain bills of entry dated 13th December, 2007, 12th February 2008, 27th February, 2008 and 17th March 2008, the respondents collected 1% EDD. In terms of circular dated 23-2-2001 in Circular No. 11/2001, the petitioner entertained the impression that considering the collection of EDO, the assessment was by way of provisional assessment. When the petitioner took steps to claim the refund of 1% EDD paid under the imports from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he above circulars, the EDO at 1% collected is only by way of provisional assessment, which is to be followed by a final assessment as per the order dated 6-6-2008. As the department accepts the 'transaction value' of the importer, then EDE) originally collected by the Department would have to be refunded to the importer upon issue of SVB assessment order. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that since the bills of entries are finally assessed, the question of claim for refund would have to be made within the time frame prescribed under the Act. The respondent pointed out that as far as the collection of 1% EDD is concerned, the claim for refund had been made beyond the six months, hence, it has to be rej .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ined from the importer. Thus, in terms of this circular dated lath December, 2007, when the petitioner filed bills of entry of 13th December, 2007, 12th February, 2008, 27th February, 2008 and 17th March, 2008, the goods were all cleared with EDD of 1% apart from the normal duty payable. It is no doubt true that the second respondent has passed an order of assessment on 6-6-2008, wherein it is observed that the imports were related to foreign suppliers as per Rule 2(2) of the Valuation Rules and the prices declared by the importer for assessment of the imported goods to duty are not influenced by the relationship. Paragraph 12 of the order directed that all pending assessments be finalised accordingly. The order passed is stated to be the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or six months, as the case may be from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof is made. A reading of the documents placed before this Court, however, gives no idea as to whether the petitioner had been given the adjustment of the tax payment of 1% under EDO on final assessment keeping in mind the order passed on 6-6-2008. Paragraph 12 states that all pending assessments be finalised accordingly. The contention of the respondents herein is that the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the amount paid at PEDO as the petitioner had not filed its claim for refund within the period of six months, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the 1% EDD collected clearly makes the assessment a provisional one i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates