TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court aligns duty calculation with tariff value over transaction value, grants refund if unjust enrichment criteria met</h1> The Court held that duty calculation should align with the tariff value fixed by the Central Govt. rather than transaction value. The rejection of the ... Refund of differential duty claim – Liability of duty on Transaction value or as per tariff value fixed by the Central Govt. - Fulfillment of conditions for granting of refund – Section 14(1) (2) & 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- In case where tariff value is fixed by Central Govt., section 14 (1) are not applicable and therefore, duty was not required to be assessed on the basis of transaction value and required to be assessed on the basis of tariff value fixed by Central Govt. – Thus, assessees are entitled to refund provided the conditions of Section 27 are fulfilled - Commissioner (A) has already held that claim was submitted in time, but neither original authority nor Commissioner (Appeals) has examined refund on ground of unjust enrichment - Matter is remanded back to original authority for examination of refund on the principles of unjust enrichment as applicable u/s 27 – Decided against revenue. Issues:- Challenge to refund claim rejection based on duty calculation method.- Interpretation of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding duty calculation.- Examination of refund eligibility and unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the rejection of a refund claim by M/s P.K. Industries for wrongly calculating customs duty in a Bill of Entry based on transaction value instead of tariff value fixed by the Central Govt. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) found the claim timely and subject to refund conditions. The Revenue argued that without challenging the assessed Bill of Entry, no refund could be granted. The judge noted duty payment based on transaction value under Section 14(1) but emphasized that when tariff value is fixed by the Govt., duty must be assessed accordingly, entitling the respondents to a refund if Section 27 conditions are met. The matter was remanded for examination of unjust enrichment.2. The judge highlighted Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, stating that when tariff value is fixed by the Central Govt., duty assessment should align with the fixed value, not transaction value. The judgment emphasized that in such cases, duty calculation should follow the tariff value, not the transaction value, as per the Act. The judge found the respondents eligible for a refund if Section 27 conditions regarding unjust enrichment are satisfied, directing the original authority to examine the refund claim based on these principles.3. The judgment addressed the core issue of duty calculation method, clarifying the applicability of Section 14 provisions based on whether tariff value is fixed by the Central Govt. or not. It emphasized that duty assessment should align with the tariff value when fixed, warranting a refund if Section 27 conditions are met. The decision to remand the matter for examination of unjust enrichment highlighted the importance of fulfilling statutory conditions for refund eligibility under the Customs Act, 1962.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
