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

2016 (8) TMI 576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re liable to ADD following which the Dy. Commissioner wrote a letter dated 12.06.2015 informing that as per examination order it was directed by the Assessing Officer regarding the payment of ADD manually before giving out-of-charge for clearance of goods. Regarding the 8th Bill of Entry No.6880702, Dy. Commissioner categorically informed that this Bill of Entry was cleared through RMS, where it was mandatory for the importer or the customs broker to pay the ADD as per rule as it is a self-assessed document. The contention of the respondent that the ADD was paid without assessment is totally untenable. It was paid very much in the process of assessment and clearance before allowing out-of-charge and clearance of the goods was allowed only a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7,68,641.00 The above refund claims were made on the grounds that (i) Anti-dumping duty (ADD) was deposited by two separate challans and the ADD was not assessed on the Bills of Entry. Therefore, it should be treated as mere deposit and (ii) Notification 70/2010-Cus, dated 25.06.2010 imposing ADD was set aside by CESTAT vide its Misc. Order No.AD/M/21/12-Cus and Final Order No.AD/A/10/12-Cus, dated 06.07.2012 and therefore there was no authority of law to levy/collect ADD. The primary adjudicating authority did not agree with the contentions of the respondent and rejected the refund claims. However, these contentions of the respondent found favour with the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the refund .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... called ADD was deposited under separate challans under compulsion without being assessed on Bills of Entry and hence was a mere deposit. Therefore, it was required to be refunded. He cited the Supreme Court judgements in the cases of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. CC (Preventive) [2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC)] and CCE Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) ELT 285 (SC)] also CESTAT judgement in the case of Madhus Garage Equipment Vs. CC [2006 (198) ELT 388 (Tri.-Bang)]. (ii) Notification No.70/2010-Cus, dated 25.06.2010 was set aside by CESTAT and the CESTAT order only states that the ADD would continue on provisional basis for a period of six months with effect from 06.07.2012. Thus there was no legal authority to collect the ADD during the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Bill of Entry, from it was seen that the ADD was assessed. In any case, in this case also, out of charge was given only after certification of payment of ADD. In this factual matrix, the contention of the respondent that the ADD was paid without assessment is totally untenable. It was paid very much in the process of assessment and clearance before allowing out-of-charge and clearance of the goods was allowed only offer the payment of ADD. The Supreme Court judgements in the cases of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. CC (Preventive) (supra) and CCE Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. and CESTAT judgement in the case of Madhus Garage Equipment Vs. CC (supra) cited by the respondent are not relevant as those judgments pertained to a situation wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is a positive finding of dumping, injury and casual relationships in the sunset review proceedings, we order continuance of the anti-dumping duty at the rate as applicable on the date proceeding issue of Notification No.70/2010, dated 25.6.2010 on PVC Paste Resin falling under CTH 3904 21 10 on a provisional basis for a period of six months from today and direct the D.A. and the Ministry of Finance to conclude the remand proceedings as well as issue of fresh anti-dumping notification, if required, within that period." Thus, it is clear that CESTAT vide its above-said order in effect not only upheld the levy and collection of ADD at the rates prescribed in the Notification No.70/2010-Cus upto the date of issuance of the said order but prov .....

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