2019 (6) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m various countries including Ukraine on CIF basis and cleared the goods on payment of Customs duty. Thereafter the appellant filed a refund application under Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962 seeking refund of excess customs duty paid on account of imposition of 1% handling charges by the Customs authorities at the time of import of goods. The refund authority issued a deficiency memo seeking additional information which was duly supplied by the appellant. Thereafter a show-cause notice dated 24.04.2018 was issued to the importer proposing to reject the refund claim on the following grounds: a. Duty was not paid in cash but through duty entitlement scrips and hence cash refund is not permissible. b. Notification 91/2017 dt. 26.09.2017....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has erred in holding that the claim requires a fresh examination of all the points examined by the refund authority. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs - 2015 (319) E.L.T. 177 (SC) and the dismissal of the review petition in Commissioner Vs. Wipro Aces Ltd. - 2016 (331) E.L.T. A37 (SC). He further submitted that in view of the Apex Court decision in Wipro, it has been settled that the imposition of 1% handling charges is in violation of the valuation provisions of Section 14 under the Customs Act, 1962. The introduction of 1% handling charges w.e.f. 1993 has been struck down and the law should be read accordingly. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax Informatics Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 446 (Del.) wherein it was held that Section 27 does not require any claim of protest for filing a refund application and moreover refund application is itself a claim of dispute between the revenue and the tax payer. Therefore, the refund application cannot be rejected on the ground of lack of any protest letter by the applicant. He further submitted that the refund sanctioning authority has rejected the claim of refund on the ground that the duty has been paid through duty entitlement scrips which is not tenable under law. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has the power of remand and by exercising that power, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Ltd. is not applicable in the facts of the present case and has wrongly followed the decision of the Madras High Court which has been overturned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further I find that the Commissioner's (Appeals) directions to examine the claim of unjust enrichment when the matter has already been examined and decided in favour of the appellant and the Revenue is not under appeal on this aspect of the Order-in-Original is not tenable in law. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) cannot in its appellate jurisdiction review the order of the refund authority which is not in dispute and has attained finality. Further the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods have not been cleared under protest and hence the refund ap....