9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Central Excise [ 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that refund u/s 27 of the Customs Act would only be permissible when the Bills of Entry has been amended or modified under the provisions of the Customs Act; and so appellant submitted letter dated 22.11.2019 before the Customs Department requesting to amend the 136 Bills of Entry u/s 149 of the Customs Act, to reassess the Bills of Entry and for grant subsequent refund. This request of the appellant was rejected against which appellant moved before Hon ble High Court of Telangana. The Hon ble Telangana High Court by its judgment dated 12.08.2021 in Writ Petition in 2021 (8) TMI 622 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT have been pleased to allow the Writ Petition to the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1975 under cover of 136 bills of entry filed during the period August 2014 to January 2015. They paid duty on the goods @ 6% CVD and 1% NCD. Subsequently, without challenging the self-assessed Bills of Entry, the appellant-importer claimed refund of duty amounting to Rs. 5,18,32,111/- in view of the decision rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs (Civil Appeal No. 9440 of 2003) on the ground that they were eligible for concessional rate of duty of CVD @ 1% advalorem by virtue of Sl.No. 263A of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. However, the original authority rejected the claim of refund filed on the ground that exemption envisaged under Sl.No.263A of Notification No.12/2012-CE da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce there were no other incidence of duty to the buyers. The original authority also held that the refund claim in respect of bills of entry at Sl.No.1 to 16 in the table in the order, were also hit by limitation of time under Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962. Accordingly, the Original Authority rejected the entire claim of refund filed by the appellant vide its Order-in-Original No. 67/2017-ACC(R) dated 18.03.2017. 3. Against the said Order dated 18.03.2017, appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority wherein the refund claim has been rejected by the Impugned Order dated 31.08.2017 on the ground that the appellant failed to satisfy that the burden of duty has not been passed onto their buyers. 4. During pendency of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication but EDI system used for filing the Bills of Entry was not updated to make available the benefit of lower rate of CVD 1% and was forced to pay CVD @ 6%. Accordingly, Hon ble High Court passed the following directions to the Original Adjudicating Authority: 51. A Writ of Mandamus is issued to 2nd respondent to amend the subject Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act to reflect the rate of tax as 1% as per Sl. No. 263A(i) of Notification No. 12/2012- C.E., dated 17-3-2012 within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to enable the importer/petitioner to seek refund of excess duty paid under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962. 52. Upon the petitioner making such application for refund of excess duty lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
