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

2023 (1) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was paid at the time of presentation of Bill of Entry on 03.01.2014 as duty on the goods / vehicles imported by the appellant. It is also admitted fact on record that those goods since were not allowed to be imported without any requisite certificate. Since the Certificate was not available with the appellant that the appellant made a request for the goods to be re-exported. Admittedly the request was made at the time when the goods were still in the Customs area. The Bill of Entry as was filed for home consumption was allowed to be amended for warehouse and those were allowed to be re-exported vide order dated 14.10.2014. The let export order was passed with respect to the goods which were still lying in the customs area on 22.11.2014. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ows:- That the appellants had imported 54 sets of battery operated rickshaw in CKD condition without battery and charger at ICD TKD vide Bill of Entry No.4233121 dated 31.12.2013. The declared assessable value of the goods is Rs.16,82,163/-. On the said value Customs duty amounting to Rs.7,76,205/- was also deposited at the time of presentation of Bill of Entry seeking clearance of goods under import for home consumption. However, during the scrutiny of said Bill of Entry, it was observed that the vehicle imported by the appellant required valid certificate of compliance in terms of Rule 126 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMVR), 1989. Since the certificate was not with the appellant-importer, that he vide its letter dated 29.9.2014. r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the period of one year under section 27(1) of Customs Act has wrongly been invoked from the date of demand of customs duty. It is mentioned that section 26A(1) of the Act has wrongly been invoked whereas the appellant s case is covered under section 27(1B)(b) and the period of limitation should have been calculated from the date of order of re-export. It is further submitted that since the goods have been re-exported and never cleared for home consumption, the intention of evading the duty which was paid at the time when Bill of Entry for home consumption has been filed, is illegal and without any authority of law. Learned Counsel has relied upon the following case laws: 1. E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lowed to be imported without any requisite certificate. Since the Certificate was not available with the appellant that the appellant made a request for the goods to be re-exported. Admittedly the request was made at the time when the goods were still in the Customs area. The Bill of Entry as was filed for home consumption was allowed to be amended for warehouse and those were allowed to be re-exported vide order dated 14.10.2014. The let export order was passed with respect to the goods which were still lying in the customs area on 22.11.2014. 6. These admitted facts are sufficient admission to the fact that the goods were never cleared for home consumption. There was no occasion for the appellant to actually pay the customs duty. H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the order dated 14.10.2014 allowing the re-export of the impugned goods. The refund application was filed for the amount as was deposited in the name of duty but was not the liability of the appellant since the goods have been re-exported and were never cleared for home consumption. As already observed above, such an amount was out of scope of being called duty, hence section 27 would not be applicable to such refunds. Resultantly appellant is entitled for the sanction on such refund. 8. I also draw my support from the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Garden Silk Mills Ltd. vs Union of India reported as [1999 (113) ELT 358 (SC)] wherein the Apex court has held that the taxable event will reach at the time when the goo .....

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