TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs duty exemption confirmed based on valid certificate of origin. Refund granted for Countervailing Duty claim.</h1> <h3>RS INFRA TRANSMISSION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS JAIPUR I</h3> RS INFRA TRANSMISSION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS JAIPUR I - TMI Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 26/2000.2. Validity of the certificate of origin from Sri Lanka.3. Provisional release conditions and subsequent payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD).4. Rejection of refund claim for CVD.5. Applicability of the limitation period for refund claims under Section 27 of the Customs Act and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Exemption from Customs Duty under Notification No. 26/2000:The appellants claimed the benefit of exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 26/2000 based on a certificate of origin from Sri Lanka. The department challenged the certificate and denied the exemption claim, leading to the seizure of goods. The Tribunal's Final Order dated 4.10.2017 confirmed the appellant's entitlement to the exemption, setting aside the denial of exemption from customs duty.2. Validity of the Certificate of Origin from Sri Lanka:The department alleged that the certificate of origin contained incorrect information, which led to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice. However, the Tribunal found no evidence from the department to prove the allegation. The certificate of origin was considered valid, and the presumption of its correctness was not rebutted by the department.3. Provisional Release Conditions and Subsequent Payment of CVD:The goods were provisionally released subject to the payment of CVD and execution of a bond and bank guarantee. The appellant paid the CVD amounting to Rs. 8,68,669/- on 07.03.2005 and executed the bond. The Tribunal's Final Order dated 4.10.2017 confirmed that the appellant was not liable to pay the CVD, leading to the filing of a refund claim.4. Rejection of Refund Claim for CVD:The refund claim for CVD was initially rejected on the grounds that it was barred by time under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The department argued that the right to avail CENVAT credit existed since 2005 and should have been utilized then. The Tribunal, however, held that the refund claim was filed within one year from the date of the Tribunal's Final Order, making it timely under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.5. Applicability of the Limitation Period for Refund Claims:The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date for filing the refund claim was the date of the Tribunal's Final Order (04.10.2017), not the date of initial payment of CVD. The refund claim filed on 18.03.2018 was within the one-year limitation period from the relevant date. The Tribunal also referenced the case of Pioneer India Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India, which supports the view that the period to claim a refund starts from the date of final assessment, not provisional payment.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant met all requirements under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and was entitled to a refund of the CVD along with interest from the date of payment. The order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits.(Pronounced in the open Court on 30-03-2022)
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
