9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed and assessment is completed. Needless to state, such refund will be subject to the petitioner satisfying that there will be no unjust enrichment on account of refund in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order is set aside with consequential relief. The respondents are directed to complete the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed. - Honourable Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr. Harish Bindumadhavan For the Respondent : Mr. G. Meganathan Standing Counsel ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order-in-Original No.84145 of 2021 (JOB No.83144/2021) dated 28.04.2021 passed by the respondent rejecting the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) of Rs. 1,16,71,430/- paid by the petitioner as refund claim. 2. By the impugned order dated 28.04.2021, the request of the petitioner for refund of the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) made by the petitioner during the pendency of the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) proceedings pursuant to a Circular No.11/2001-Cus dated 23.02.2001 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes has been rejected with the following observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, proceedings were initiated by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB), Chennai. 5. It is submitted that as was required under Board Circular No.11/2001-Cus dated 23.02.2001, the petitioner started to pay 1% of the value as Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) on the imports made by the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that the Special Valuation Branch (SVB), Chennai, passed an order on 20.01.2017 whereby, in response to the questions raised by the petitioner, the Special Valuation Branch (SVB), Chennai vide Investigation Report No.02/2017 bearing Ref.F.No.S50/40/2014-SVB dated 20.01.2017, ultimately concluded that the imports made by the petitioner from its parent Company Nittan Japan had no impact on the transaction value of the goods, as declared in the invoices. In this connection, a reference was made to Paragraph c of the aforesaid Investigation Report. It reads as under:- c. Payments other than invoice value of imported goods: The importer has submitted copy of Technical Collaboration Agreement dated 01.12.2014 entered into between M/s.Nittan India Tech Private Limited, Chittoor and M/s.Nittan Valve Co. Limited, Japan. As per the agreement, the importer has to pay royalty to the rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exists reasons other than the influence of relationship to doubt the value, assessing groups may evaluate the value of the imported goods under appropriate provisions of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Valuation of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. This is issued with approval of the Principal Commissioner. This is forwarded for necessary action as per CBEC Circular No.05/2016 dated 09.02.2016. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that for the imports made between April 2014 to March 2016, refund application filed by the petitioner was also sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) vide Order-in-Original No.71064 of 2019. 8. As far as the refund claim made by the petitioner on 17.12.2020 for the goods imported between April 2016 to July 2017, the respondent has taken a contra view stating that the petitioner refund claim was time barred in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. It is further submitted that the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) is merely a deposit and not customs duty payable on the importation of goods in terms of Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is further submitted that this very aspect was considered by this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extra duty presently kept at 1% will be continued. Board has however decided that if the importer does not furnish complete reply to the questionnaire within 30 days of receipt of the 'Questionnaire' by the importer, the extra duty deposit will be increased to 5% till date of receipt of reply by the Department. It should therefore be impressed upon the concerned importers (in the public note that is issued) to ensure timely replies being sent to the Questionnaire to avoid any higher deposit being insisted. 13. In the Counter Affidavit, it is stated that the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) is collected at the time of provisional assessment of the Bills of Entry and the same is adjusted towards duty payable if any, at the time of finalization of assessments for the provisionally assessed Bills of entry. It is therefore submitted that the refund claims arising out of the payment of Duty Deposit ought to be processed only under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, the refund claim made by the petitioner on 17.12.2020 for the imports made by the petitioner between April 2016 to July 2017 is time barred. A reference was also made to the decision of the Tribunal (CESTAT) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
