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>Court Denies Refund of 4% Special Additional Duty Due to Non-Compliance with Cash Payment Requirement in Circular.</h1> <h3>M/s. Elite Green Pvt Ltd. Versus Under Secretary (Customs-Iii/Vi) /Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Central Board Of Excise And Customs, The Director General Of Foreign Trade, Commissioner Of Customs, Assistant Commissioner Of Customs Refund</h3> The HC dismissed the writ petition seeking a refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported goods, as the petitioner failed to comply with the ... Refund of SAD - introduction of new Circular No. 18/2013-Cus dated 29.04.2013 directing the importer to make an initial payment of 4% SAD in cash instead of scrips - petitioner was unaware of the new Circular - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, when the petitioner has not paid the 4% SAD in cash but in scrips despite Circular No. 18/2013-Cus. dated 29.04.2013, he was not entitled to refund of 4% of SAD - there are no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the public notice was not issued regarding Circular No. 18/2013-Cus. dated 29.04.2013. If the said Circular was published on the official website of the DGFT, it amounts that the public notice was given about the Circular. There are no merit and substance in the present writ petition - petition dismissed. Issues involved: The judgment deals with a writ petition seeking a mandamus for the sanction of a refund claim of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) against imported goods in 2014 and 2015.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Interpretation of Circular No. 18/2013-Cus dated 29.04.2013The petitioner, a leading food processing unit in India, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of 4% SAD against imported goods. The petitioner claimed that they were unaware of Circular No. 18/2013-Cus, which required payment of the SAD in cash for a refund. The petitioner argued that public notice should have been given regarding this circular, which was not done, leading to confusion. The respondents contended that the circular was published on the official website of the DGFT, constituting sufficient public notice. The court found that the petitioner's payment in scrips instead of cash rendered them ineligible for the refund under the circular. The court dismissed the petition, stating that publication on the official website constituted public notice.Issue 2: Eligibility for Refund of 4% SADThe petitioner's claim for a refund of 4% SAD was not processed due to non-compliance with Circular No. 18/2013-Cus, which required payment in cash. The petitioner argued that since customs authorities were unaware of the circular, they should not be penalized for non-compliance. However, the court held that the petitioner's failure to pay in cash as per the circular made them ineligible for the refund. The court sided with the respondents, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the refund based on the payment method used.Conclusion:The court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, emphasizing that the petitioner's payment in scrips instead of cash for the SAD refund rendered them ineligible. The interim order, if any, was vacated as a result of the dismissal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
