9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries dated 25.08.1994 and 27.08.1994, had, admittedly, classified the coils under Entry 8544.11 and the spares and accessories under Entry 6815.99 under the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short 'Act'). (iii) Subsequently, the petitioner came to understand that the classification had been incorrect and that the imported goods should have been classified under Entry 8503 of the Tariff. (iv) Customs duty had been remitted on self-assessment basis at the time of import, albeit on the basis of the erroneous tariff headings, and hence an application for refund had been filed by the petitioner on 27.08.1994. (v) Since the issue that arises in this Writ Petition is as regards the specific items for which refund was sought, it would be worth setting out the exact language in which the refund had been sought by the petitioner. The refund application is thus extracted in toto, in the interest of clarity and in support of the conclusion ultimately reached. The application reads thus: 27.08.1994 The Asst. Collector of Customs, Refund Section, Customs House, Madras - 600 001. Dear Sirs, Sub: Application for refund of excess custom duty paid - Reg. Ref: 1) B.E.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on-availability of the orders-in-original and appeal as well as the statement of facts and grounds filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). I say that for this reason that in the impugned order accepting the request for refund only partially, R2 proceeds on the basis that the petitioner is entitled only to refund, on account of the duty paid for coils and not accessories. (ix) The impugned order is itself based upon the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Cestat/Tribunal') dated 02.03.2016, which is in favour of the petitioner and reversed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). (x) While it is the case of the petitioner that the order of the Cestat proceeds to accept its refund application in full, it is the case of the revenue that the Cestat has directed refund of only that part of the duty as relates to coils rejecting the refund application in respect of accessories. (xi) This then, in effect, is the dispute to be decided. 4. It would thus be useful to extract the relevant portions of the order of the Cestat, as follows: 2.The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are a State PSU, imported parts of Hydro Electric Gener ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue have been extracted at paragraph 4, as follows: 4.On the other hand, the Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and appellate authority and vehemently opposes the appellant's submissions. He drew attention to the Bills of Entry where the appellants have declared that the items were epoxy insulated single turn half coils with accessories, which are rightly classified under 8544. He submits that the classification is determined by the provisions under chapter note and section note and under specific entry. He also submits that judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat relied on by the appellant is clearly distinguishable as what is imported in that case was stators. 6. The findings and conclusions of the Cestat constitute the remainder of the order from paragraph 5 onwards and in the interests of clarity, though compromising brevity, I extract the rest of the order below: 5.After hearing both the sides we find that the short issue involved in this appeal is whether the impugned goods imported and cleared under the said Bills of Entry are classifiable under 8503 as parts of generators or under 8544 as insulated wire/cables as claimed by the Revenue. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that these stators are particularly meant for generators only. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Windel Submersible Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI (supra) clearly settled the issue that rotors and stators used in monoblock pump which are suitable for electric motors are classifiable under 8503, which has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Sharp Industries Vs. CCE (supra). 7.Accordingly, we hold that the goods imported under the Bills of Entries are epoxy stator coils solely designed for power generators for Hydro Power Project and rightly classifiable under 8503 and not under 8544. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief. 8.Before parting we observe that this case pertains to 1990 and for 15 years it is moved to various appellate levels and this is the third round of litigation and wherein at the first round the dispute reached up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court allowed their appeal and remanded to the Asst. Commissioner to decide the refund application. Considering the period of 15 years' time to reach the final stage and also considering the appellant is a State PSU, Karnataka Power Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent to which it rejects the refund in respect of accessories is quashed. The refund shall be paid forthwith along with applicable interest within a period of six (6) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. R2, in the impugned order, has restricted the payment of interest from date of order of Cestat, which appears contrary to the provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 that deals with claims for refund of duty. Section 27A of the Customs Act reads as follows: Section 27A. Interest on delayed refunds. -If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 to an applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate,[ not below five percent.] and not exceeding thirty percent per annum as is for the time being fixed60[by the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette], on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: Provided that where any duty, ordered to be refunded under sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
