9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue. If the said deposits do not adopt the nature of duty, the provisions of section 27(1) would not get attracted. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Swastik Sanitarywares Ltd. Vs Union of India [2012 (11) TMI 149 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that second-time deposit of the same amount on clearance of the same goods did not amount to deposit of excise duty and was a pure mistaken deposit of the amount with the department which the Revenue cannot retain or withhold. Such claims would not fall under section 11B of the Central Excise Act - Admittedly, the filing of advance bill of entry with deposit of duty amount, did not materialize inasmuch as, on account of some mistake in respect of bill of lading, the goods were no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Act, 1962. 3. The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim as barred by limitation. The said order of the original authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 4. After hearing Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) on behalf of the respondents, I find that there is no dispute about the fact of deposit of duty at the time of filing the first advance bill of entry. No goods stand imported against the said bill of entry and when the goods actually arrived, a fresh bill of entry was filed, duty was paid and the goods were cleared. As such, I fully agree with the learned advocate that there is no taxable event i.e., import of goods into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... problem is viewed from another angle, the Revenue could have allowed the importer to amend and rectify the advance bill of entry filed by the importer, by specifying the correct number of bill of lading. In such a scenario, the deposits made by the appellant would have been adjusted against the Customs duty required to be paid by the importer, thus unnecessitated the filing of second bill of entry and second-time duty deposit. In any case and in any view of the matter, the importer is required to pay duty only once in respect of the goods imported by them. As such, the first time deposit, not being Customs duty is required to be returned to them without raising the issue of limitation. 7. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
