9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nally fixed by Notification No.52/2006-Cus dt.31.5.2006, they paid ADD of Rs. 7,41,775/-. Later as per final Notification No.121/2006 dt.26.12.2006, the Government finalized the ADD which was reduced. As per the final notification, appellants had to pay ADD of Rs. 93,690.48 only. They filed refund claim for the excess amount of Rs. 6,48,084.52 and the same was rejected by original authority stating that the appellant had not requested for re-assessment of bill of entry. The refund claim is premature and that the claim can be considered only after bill of entry is reassessed by an order of appropriate appellate authority. Against this, the appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the rejection of refund stating that the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as is in excess of the anti-dumping duty as so reduced." It is very much clear from the law laid in the above sub section that in case by final notification, the ADD is reduced, the excess paid is to be refunded. The Larger Bench decision (supra) squarely covers the issue. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "9. It is common case that the final fixation of anti-dumping duty on PVC Resin imported from South Korea was covered by Notification 4/94 dated 18-1-1994. The moment that notification was issued it was the bounden duty of the Central Government to refund so much of the anti-dumping duty which had been collected as was in excess of the anti- dumping duty finally fixed therein. It means that the Government of India should hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should pay interest to compensate the importer in terms of the principle known as quasi contract. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the importer is entitled to get all his claims of refund which are in consonance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 9A(2) of the Customs Tariff Act together with interest as fixed herein after. He is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period starting from the date of expiry of three months from the date of final notification, namely, 18-1-1994 till the date of payment." 6. From the above discussions and following the ratio laid by Larger Bench, we hold that the rejection of refund is unjustified. The impugned order rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
