2020 (10) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ariff from 30.06.2017. In order to continue the said concessional rate of duty on the said product even after the amendment a Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 20.06.2017 was issued which had rescinded the earlier Notification. In the new Notification No. 50/017-Customs, the concessional rate was mentioned against Sr. No. 252 against heading No. 38231190 whereas no such heading is existing in the customs Tariff itself with effect from 30.06.2017. However, when the said product was imported in the month of July, 2017 by the appellant, the customs official denied extending the benefit of nil concessional rate under Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 on the analogy that the concessional rate is applicable only to sub-heading....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of duty was restored. Due to this changes, the appellant's import became entitle for exemption. Accordingly, the appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 118,06,237/- (duty Rs. 1,12,19,190/- + penalty Rs. 5,87,047/-), in respect of duty as well as the penalty paid by them at the time of clearance of goods. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim vide Order-In-Original dated 14.07.2018. Being aggrieved by the said Order-In-Original, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned the refund for an amount of Rs. 1,12,19,190/-. However, the refund of Rs. 5,87,047/- paid towards penalty for late filing of bill of entry was rejected. Therefore, the appellant filed the pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unds of appeal filed by the appellant. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue in the present case is limited that whether the penalty imposed for late filing to bill of entry is legal and correct. Consequently rejection of refund of such penalty is correct or otherwise. We find that filing to bill of entry has been regulated under Bill of Entry (forms) Regulations, 1976. The regulation 4 which was inserted by the Notification No. 27/2017-CUS (N.T) dated 31.03.2017 is reproduced below:- Bill of Entry (Forms) Regulations, 1976 - Amendment of 2017 "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 157 read with section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). (3) No charges for late presentation of Bill of Entry shall be liable to be paid where the entry inwards or arrival of cargo, as the case may be, has taken place before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2017 receives the assent of the President." 4.1 From the plain reading of the above regulation, it is clear that though the importer is required to present the bill of entry before the end of the next day following the day (excluding holidays) on which the Aircraft or Vessel or Vehicle carrying the goods arrives at a Customs station at which such goods are to be cleared for home consumption or warehousing. However, as per sub regulation (2), it is provided that the penalty ....