9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Goa. 2. The facts of the case are summarized herein below: - 2.1 The appellants vide an agreement dated 02.02.2012 entered with Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) had purchased 1960086.950 MMBTU [85,000 cubic meters] of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) on high sea sale basis from GAIL. Initially, GAIL had in turn had purchased and imported 30,00,000 MMBTU [1,29,500 cubic meters] of LNG from Excelerate Energy Limited, Woodlands, Texas, USA, who is the supplier located abroad, and out of which 1960086.950 MMBTU [85,000 cubic meters] of LNG alone was sold by GAIL to RGPPL on high sea sale basis. Upon arrival of the vessel carrying LNG at the port of import, both RGPPL and GAIL, res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e balance quantity of LNG which could not be unloaded, was not imported and the same were exported out of the country. 2.3 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate that, upon RGPPL's request, GAIL had also executed an agreement dated 25.09.2012 with the supplier abroad to re-sell the balance quantity left in the vessel. According to such agreement, RGPPL had returned the balance quantity of LNG which could not be unloaded from the vessel. Thus, he stated that the appellants through GAIL had exported back the entire quantity of LNG which could not be unloaded and hence these are not in the nature of imported goods. 2.4 On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty paid during provisional assessment i.e. Rs.3,06,39,340/- [7,79,37,340 - 4,72,98,000] vide their letter dated 22.07.2013 which is subject matter of present appeal. This refund represents duty paid on LNG which was not unloaded and not cleared for home consumption. 5.3 In pursuance to the finalization of assessment of the impugned B/E dated 27.03.2012 vide Order dated 15.03.2013, the appellants have filed refund application seeking refund of customs duty paid in excess to the amount of duty finally assessed viz., refund of excess amount of customs duty paid during provisional assessment i.e. Rs.3,06,39,340/- [7,79,37,340 - 4,72,98,000]. Against the said refund application/letter dated 22.07.2013, the original authority had sanctioned the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f customs duty paid in excess by the appellants. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had also taken into account the fact that the final assessment of the duty vide Order dated 15.03.2013 by the original authority, was modified on the basis of the Order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the first appellate authority in respect of issues relating to demurrage charges/chartering expenses, retention charges, HSFO consumed during the period of vessel lying at the port of import, value of mooring trails etc. and the appellants have further filed one another refund claim of Rs. 2,75,99,349/- which was duly sanctioned by such original authority. Since, the original authority had referred to the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the Books of Account for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not unloaded being shortage of LNG as against the proposed quantity intended to be imported show in B/L and B/E, but which was exported back. Further, the impugned order has referred to issue arising from one another order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16.09.2013, where the valuation of the imported goods alone was examined and the assessable value was accordingly re-determined. Direction was given to the original authority for re-determination of assessable value in respect of charges to be included. On the above basis, the original authority had also re-determined the final assessment of customs duty and revised it downwards from Rs.4,74,82,178/- to Rs. 1,98,82,829/- and also sanctioned the refund claim of Rs. 2,75,99,349/- after sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire quantity has not been actually discharged, the claim of unjust enrichment does not apply to such cases of goods not unloaded/short landed, by relying upon the orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the cases of Petronet LNG Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad - 2012 (275) E.L.T. 568 (Tri-Ahmd.) and Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad Vs. Hazira LNG Pvt. Ltd. - Final Order No. A/11473/2017 dated 20.07.2017. We also find that the order of the Tribunal Hazira LNG Pvt. Ltd. (supra), was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the judgement delivered on 15.02.2018. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find that the issue needs to be examined in detail on the above aspects by examining the legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
