2016 (11) TMI 985 - AT - Customs

Appellant's Refund Claim Dismissed for Failure to Produce Required Certificate

M.P. Polypropelene Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

M.P. Polypropelene Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2016 (342) E.L.T. 291 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Notification No.345/86.2. Requirement of producing certificate from Industrial Advisor in DGTD at the time of clearance.3. Rejection of refund claim based on non-compliance with conditions and limitation period.Analysis:Issue 1: Eligibility for Concessional Rate of DutyThe appellant filed a refund claim stating they did not avail the benefit of Notification No.345/86, which allowed a concessional rate of duty on imported polypropylene granules for manufacturing BOPP film. The notification required a certificate from the Industrial Advisor in the DGTD for clearance at a concessional rate of duty. The appellant claimed they applied for the certificate before clearance but did not have it at the time. The Tribunal noted the appellant's failure to produce the certificate at the time of clearance, which was a basic condition for availing the benefit under the notification.Issue 2: Requirement of Certificate at the Time of ClearanceThe Tribunal emphasized that the exemption certificate was produced after the goods were cleared from the docks, contrary to the requirement of presenting it at the time of clearance. The appellant's argument that they applied for the certificate before clearance did not exempt them from complying with the notification's condition. As the certificate was not available during the clearance period, the refund claim was rightly rejected based on non-compliance with the essential condition of producing the certificate at the time of clearance.Issue 3: Rejection of Refund ClaimThe Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim due to the appellant's failure to produce the required certificate at the time of clearance, leading to the payment of full duty. The appellant's claim for refund, made after six months from the duty payment, was deemed untimely. Since the duty was paid without protest or provisional assessment, and the refund claim was filed beyond the permissible period, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the lower authorities' decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim.In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the appellant's refund claim as they failed to comply with the essential condition of producing the required certificate at the time of clearance, rendering them ineligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No.345/86.