2017 (10) TMI 158 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Decides MMTC's Export Refund Appeals, Dismissing Some, Remanding Others

MMTC Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai And (Vice-Versa)

The Tribunal disposed of the appeals related to refund claims by M/s.MMTC for exports during June 2008 to November 2008. The original authority and ... Refund claim - exports made during June 2008 to November 2008 - Shipping Bills covered by order of the Settlement Commission dated 07.05.2015 - Shipping Bills in which plea of time bar raised by Revenue - Held that: - The take away from the submissions of both sides is that in respect of assessee's appeal No.C/14/2012, MMTC is not pressing for the refund claim in respect of these Shipping Bills - Appeals in respect of these shipping bills are dismissed. Refund claim - Refund denied on the ground of non-submission of original of exporter copy of shipping bill - Held that: - the matter is remanded to the original authority to consider the refund claims on the basis of Indemnity Bonds that may allowed to be produced by MMTC - matter on remand. Refund claim - Actual export after exemption given to export of iron ore fine on 07.12.2008 - Original Shipping Bill prepared on 5.12.2008. Thereafter, cancelled due to substitution of vessel. Actual export on 9.12.2008 vide fresh Shipping - Held that: - the issue herein also is being remanded to the original authority to consider the claim made by MMTC that export duty was paid on a shipping bill which was cancelled due to non availability of vessel and that actual export was done after the duty was exempted, hence the refund is justified - matter on remand. Refund claim - time limitation - Held that: - MMTC not being government organization but only a corporation cannot become eligible for extended period of limitation of one year for filing refund claim - decided in favor of Revenue. Appeal allowed in part by way of remand. Issues involved:1. Refund claims filed by M/s.MMTC for exports made during June 2008 to November 2008.2. Interpretation of Circular No.18/2008 issued by CBEC regarding computation of export duty.3. Rejection of refund claims by original authority and Commissioner (Appeals).4. Appeal filed by MMTC against rejection of refund claims.5. Departmental appeals filed against Orders-in-Appeal by Commissioner of Customs.Analysis:1. The appeals in question relate to refund claims filed by M/s.MMTC for exports made during June 2008 to November 2008. The issue arose when Circular No.18/2008 was issued by the CBEC, clarifying the computation of export duty. The original authority rejected all refund claims citing various reasons, leading to an appeal by MMTC against the rejection.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority's decision, prompting MMTC to file an appeal (No.C/14/2012). Additionally, the Department filed two appeals (No.C/377/2012 and C/378/2012) against Orders-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) concerning the interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. During the hearing, MMTC's advocate presented a detailed chart outlining various shipping bills and the corresponding refund claims. The advocate clarified that certain claims were not being pressed due to settlements or time limitations, while others were contested based on legal grounds, such as duty payment under mistake.4. The advocate argued for the acceptance of Indemnity Bonds for refund claims rejected due to non-submission of original exporter copies of shipping bills. The advocate also highlighted a specific case where duty was paid on a cancelled shipping bill, emphasizing the eligibility for a refund.5. After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal made specific rulings on each category of shipping bills. Some claims were dismissed, while others were remanded to the original authority for further consideration based on legal aspects and submissions. The Tribunal also addressed the Departmental appeals, ultimately allowing them based on the concession made and the eligibility criteria for extended periods of limitation.6. In conclusion, all three appeals were disposed of with specific orders for each category of shipping bills, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the refund claims and legal interpretations involved in the case.