2015 (12) TMI 578 - AT - Customs

Revenue's Appeals on Customs Duty Refunds Rejected; Circular Deadline Upheld

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD Versus M.B. ENTERPRISE

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD Versus M.B. ENTERPRISE - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 296 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:Appeal against orders upholding fulfillment of conditions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. for refunds of 4% Additional Customs Duty. Interpretation of time limits for using re-credited DEPB scrips. Validity of orders passed by first appellate authority and adjudicating authorities.Analysis:The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the orders passed by the first appellate authority, which upheld the fulfillment of conditions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. for refunds of 4% Additional Customs Duty. The adjudicating authorities noted that all respondents met the conditions and sanctioned refunds via credit notes in the importers' License/Scrip. The Revenue contended that the time limit for using re-credited DEPB scrips was extended until 30-9-2013 per various Circulars and Public Notices. The Revenue argued that the orders should be set aside based on these directives.The Revenue's representative argued that DEPB Scrips could not be used after 30-9-2013 for discharging SAD liability. The appellants filed cross-objections supporting the first appellate authority's decision. The respondents' representative contended that all refund claims were submitted before 30-6-2013, meeting the Notification's conditions. They argued that circulars cannot override the right to claim refunds under the exemption notification.Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the main issue was whether sanctioning 4% SAD refunds via re-credit in licenses after 30-6-2013 was appropriate. It was found that re-credited amounts were permitted until 30-6-2013, with an extension to 30-9-2013 as per Circulars. The first appellate authority's orders indicated that re-credits were granted before 30-9-2013. The Revenue failed to prove re-credits were allowed after the deadline. Additionally, there was no stipulation in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. that SAD duty must be initially paid in cash. The respondents rightly argued that a right under an exemption notification cannot be nullified by Departmental Circulars. Consequently, the orders of the first appellate authority were legally sound and did not warrant interference.In conclusion, the appeals by the Revenue were rejected, and the cross-objections by the respondents were allowed.