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>Appellant wins automatic refund of Extra Duty Deposit under Customs Act</h1> <h3>China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd Versus C.C. -Ahmedabad</h3> China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd Versus C.C. -Ahmedabad - TMI Issues:- Denial of refund of Extra Duty Deposit paid by the appellant in terms of CBEC Circular No.11/2001 relating to cases handled by Special Valuation Branch of the customs house.- Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the refund claim filed by the appellant.- Whether the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) paid is a security deposit or provisional duty payment.- Entitlement to interest on delayed payment of refund of EDD.Analysis:Issue 1: Denial of Refund of Extra Duty DepositThe appellant imported goods from a related entity in Taiwan, leading to the matter being referred to the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) for valuation. The appellant paid 1% Extra Duty Deposit during the investigation, which was refundable upon final assessment approving the declared value. A show cause notice was issued alleging the refund claim was time-barred due to the finalization of assessment dates falling before the claim filing date.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs ActThe appellant argued that the 1% EDD was a security deposit, not a duty payment, hence Section 27 did not apply to the refund claim. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that previous decisions supported their position that Section 27 does not cover the refund of EDD. The appellant highlighted Circular No.5/2016, emphasizing that EDD is a security deposit as per CBEC's directive, further supported by a previous refund granted in their favor.Issue 3: Nature of Extra Duty DepositThe appellant emphasized that the EDD was a security deposit, not provisional duty payment, as per Circular No.11/2001-Cus. They argued that the decision in BUSSA OVERSEAS AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. was inapplicable due to differing facts, asserting their entitlement to interest on delayed refund payment.Issue 4: Entitlement to InterestThe appellant pressed for interest on delayed refund payment, reinforcing their stance that the decision in BUSSA OVERSEAS AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. did not align with the present case's circumstances. They highlighted a previous refund granted by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, further supporting their claim for interest on delayed refund of EDD.Judgment:The Tribunal found that the decision in BUSSA OVERSEAS AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. was distinct from the present case. Referring to the decision of the High Court of Madras, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant was entitled to an automatic refund of EDD without the need for a formal refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's entitlement to the refund was upheld, emphasizing that the refund claim was not time-barred.
TaxTMI 