2018 (7) TMI 452 - AT - Customs

Govt Undertaking Wins Customs Duty Refund Appeal for Project Import

M/s. Numaligarh Refineries Ltd. Versus CC (PORT), Kol.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of a Central Govt Undertaking seeking a refund of excess customs duty paid on imported capital goods for a new project. ... Project Import - benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 01-03-2002 as amended by N/N. 07/2004-Cus dated 08-01-2004 - delay in production of Essentiality Certificate - Import prior to application for registration made - appellant submitted that the order of clearance was passed only after submission of application for registration - Held that:- The appellant filed the Essentiality Certificate for availing project rate of customs duty as applicable for setting up a new industrial unit under the said notification issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas - there is no reason to deny the benefit of the exemption notification. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. TULLOW India Operations Ltd. [2005 (10) TMI 502 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] observed that exemption benefit cannot be denied on the ground of delay in production of Essentiality Certificate. In so far as the competent authority issued the Essentiality Certificate in respect of the instant project imports, there is no reason to deny the benefit of the exemption notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Refund of excess customs duty paid under project import for the manufacture of motor spirit and LPG.2. Denial of benefit of exemption notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01-03-2002 as amended by Notification No. 07/2004-Cus dated 08-01-2004.3. Interpretation of delay in production of Essentiality Certificate for availing project rate of customs duty.4. Applicability of case laws in similar customs duty exemption cases.Issue 1: Refund of Excess Customs Duty:The appellant, a Central Govt Undertaking engaged in manufacturing refined petroleum products, imported capital goods for a new project. Customs duty was paid on these imports under respective tariff headings, not under heading No. 9801.00. The appellant sought a refund of excess duty paid, which was denied by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner(Appeals). The Tribunal reviewed the case and found that the appellant had followed the necessary procedures for project import registration under heading 9801.00. The appellant had imported machinery and spare parts under 18 Bills of Entry, claiming exemption under a specific notification. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had submitted the Essentiality Certificate for availing the project rate of customs duty. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to deny the benefit of the exemption notification, and the appeal was allowed.Issue 2: Denial of Exemption Benefit:The Tribunal referred to a Circular and various case laws cited by the appellant's counsel to support the claim for exemption benefit. Notably, the Tribunal highlighted the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. TULLOW India Operations Ltd., where the Supreme Court emphasized that exemption benefits should not be denied due to delays in producing Essentiality Certificates. The Tribunal also mentioned the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, where the Supreme Court held that once the Essentiality Certificate was issued, the conditions for obtaining exemption were satisfied. Considering the facts and the Essentiality Certificate issued for the project imports, the Tribunal concluded that the benefit of the exemption notification should not be denied.Issue 3: Delay in Essentiality Certificate Production:The Tribunal analyzed the delay in producing the Essentiality Certificate for availing the project rate of customs duty. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that delays in such certificates should not automatically disqualify an assessee from obtaining a refund. Each case must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances. The Tribunal referred to specific sections from the judgments to support the principle that delays in certificate production should not lead to the denial of exemption benefits.Issue 4: Applicability of Case Laws:The Tribunal considered the case laws cited by both parties. The appellant's counsel relied on various judgments to establish the entitlement to exemption benefits. The Tribunal reviewed these cases, including the observations made by the Supreme Court in similar customs duty exemption matters. By analyzing the facts of the present case and the legal principles established in the cited judgments, the Tribunal determined that the appellant should not be denied the benefit of the exemption notification, ultimately allowing the appeal.Overall, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the refund of excess customs duty, denial of exemption benefits, interpretation of Essentiality Certificate delays, and the applicability of relevant case laws led to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appellant's appeal.