2020 (3) TMI 649 - AT - Customs

Appellant entitled to SAD refund due to unrestricted payment mode; Tribunal dismisses Revenue's stay argument.

The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of the Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid through a duty paid script as the duty payment ... Refund of SAD - rejection on the ground that the duty has been paid by the appellant by utilising duty paid script - Public Notice No. 06/2014 dated 18.04.2013 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. there is no restriction to pay duty by utilisation of duty paid script. Therefore, the Public Notice dated 18.04.2013 is no application for rejection of refund claim of SAD paid by utilisation of duty paid script. The argument of Learned AR relying in the case of M.F. RINGS & BEARING RACES LTD., R.N. GUPTA & CO. LTD., UMA SHANKAR KHANDELWAL & CO., KUNJ FORGINGS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ANOTHER, UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2016 (5) TMI 440 - DELHI HIGH COURT] to say that the order of the Hon’ble High Court has been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court have no significance as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-I VERSUS SPACE TELELINK LTD. [2017 (3) TMI 1599 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that although the order has been stayed by the higher forum will not loose its legality unless and until the order is set aside. The appellant is entitled for refund of the SAD paid by utilisation of duty paid script - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) rejected due to duty payment through script.Analysis:The appellant, an importer and trader, appealed against the rejection of a refund claim for SAD as duty was paid using a duty paying script. The appellant paid VAT/CST while selling the imported goods and filed a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007. The claim was rejected based on Public Notice No. 06/2014, stating that duty payment through a script on refund claims is not admissible. The appellant argued that the mode of duty payment was not prescribed in the notification and that the duty paid through a script was accepted at the time of goods clearance. Citing a Delhi High Court case, the appellant contended that subsequent public notices had no legal value. The Revenue's representative referred to another Delhi High Court case and stated that the law laid down in the appellant's case was not valid. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal examined the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case, where it directed the Department to grant the refund as per the notification conditions.The Tribunal noted that Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. did not restrict duty payment through a duty paid script. Therefore, the Public Notice rejecting the refund claim based on script utilization was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument about a stay order from a higher court, citing a Delhi High Court case that stated an order retains legality until set aside. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of the SAD paid through a duty paid script. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.