9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods which were imported were the same goods that had earlier been exported and further the importer had paid customs duty equal to the export benefit availed at the time of export of the concerned goods. - Since export of goods had been made along with claim for rebate of Cenvat duty of ₹ 92,391/-, and the importer could not prove that rebate had not been granted by the Central Excise authorities, the amount along with interest was charged as customs duty. The goods were released on payment of such customs duty - May be, at the material time the petitioners could not prove non-receipt of the claim for rebate and there was urgency in clearance of goods for which the petitioner paid the amount of the rebate claimed. Such payment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. And Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Adv. ORDER INDIRA BANERJEE, J.: 1. The Petitioner Company is engaged in manufacture and export of inter alia Fine Chemicals. 2. The Petitioner Company exported a consignment of 4-Chloro-4- Fluorobutyrphenone- by air to M/s Dupont Sverige AB in Sweden under Shipping Bill No. 2511399 dated 14th February, 2011. 3. The aforesaid goods, having been manufactured by the petitioner company, the Petitioner Company had paid Central Excise Duty thereon. 4. By a letter No. BNM/FC/46/2011-12 dated 18th July, 2011, the Petitioner Company applied to Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise, Export Refund Branch, Kolkata-III Commissionerate for rebate of Central Excise Duty on the aforesaid goods, in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner company alongwith the documents submitted by the petitioner company in connection with its claim for rebate. The Bill of Entry dated 26th July, 2011 was duly assessed by the Customs authorities and the import duty was calculated at Nil . 11. The Customs Authorities, however, asked the petitioner for payment of duty of ₹ 92,391/- against Bill of Entry dated 26th July, 2011 and ₹ 7,518/- as interest. 12. The petitioner duly deposited duty of ₹ 92,391/- and ₹ 7,518/- as interest for which Customs Receipts Nos.28 and 57 were duly issued to the petitioner company. 13. The Appraiser, thereafter, passed an examination order dated 7th September, 2011 in respect of the Bill of Entry dated 26th Jul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral excise authorities were proposing to reject the rebate claimed as there was no export by the petitioners. However, at the time of return of the exported goods, the entire amount of the rebate claimed had been realized from the petitioners on the premises that rebate had been granted to the petitioners. 18. The petitioners contended that the petitioners had paid Central Excise duty on the goods at the time of removal of the goods from their factory for export and they had further paid the same amount at the time of return of the goods into India, at the insistence of the customs authorities on the premises that they had claimed rebate of the Central Excise duty that had been paid. 19. On 23rd February, 2011 the petitioners appeare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India attract customs duty on their re-import, like any other import, unless specifically exempted by a notification. 24. In the instant case, the petitioners claimed exemption under notification No. 94/96 CUS dated 16th December, 1996. For availing benefit of the said notification, the Assistant Commissioner had to be satisfied that the goods which were imported were the same goods that had earlier been exported and further the importer had paid customs duty equal to the export benefit availed at the time of export of the concerned goods. 25. Since export of goods had been made along with claim for rebate of Cenvat duty of ₹ 92,391/-, and the importer could not prove that rebate had not been granted by the Central Excise author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention of the customs authorities to the return of their claim application. Perhaps, the petitioner should have objected to the realization of the amount refund of refund claimed, on the ground that the claim application had been returned. 30. However, even assuming that there was any omission on the part of the petitioners, the concerned respondents cannot unjustly enrich themselves at the cost of the petitioners. If no customs duty was in fact payable by the petitioners, but duty realized on the premises that the petitioners had claimed rebate, the respondent customs authorities would be obliged to refund the amount realized through mistake on being satisfied that no rebate of Central Excise duty had actually been allowed. 31. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
