TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1030
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide Serial No. 65 to Notification No. 50/2017-Customs, dated 30-6-2017. 4. The petitioner filed the aforesaid bill of entry dated 1-3-2018 to clear 1000 metric tons of RBD Palm Oil. Earlier, the consignment vide Bill of Entry No. 5071127, dated 5-2-2018 and Bill of Entry No. 5409602, dated 1-3-2018. The Notification No. 29/2018-Cus., dated 1-3-2018 which enhanced the rate of customs duty from 40% to 54% was digitally signed and published by the Central Government on 6-3-2018 at 19:15:13+05'30'. 5. Since, the rate of duty was sought to be enhanced vide Notification No. 29/18-Cus., dated 1-3-2018, the petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging the notification enhancing the rate of customs duty from 40% to 54% before the Hon'ble Andhra High Court and before this Court in W.P. No. 21207 of 2018 [2021 (375) E.L.T. 40 (Mad.)]. The Andhra High Court by its order dated 28-9-2019 [2020 (374) E.L.T. 898 (A.P.)] interpreted Section 25(1) and 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and concluded as follows :- 76. In view of the law declared by the Courts with regard to interpretation of taxing statutes, it is clear that when the amended provision or any provision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of ex-bond bills of entry for release of the goods which is explicit from Section 15(1)(b) of the Act. But the respondents collected the customs duty initially @ 30%, but later by the time of release, customs duty was enhanced @ 44% and demanded the variation of 14%. 78. As discussed above, sub-section (4) of Section 25 created absurdity, confusion and friction. The very collection of customs duty @ 44% on the imported goods belonging to these petitioners prior to the publication of notification in electronic mode is an illegality. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to claim refund of the amount paid in excess of 30% of the original rate of customs duty as on the date of presentation of ex-bond bills of entry for clearance of import goods for human consumption. Therefore, the respondents are liable to repay the excess amount which they collected from the petitioners beyond 30% of customs duty. 79. One of the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the respondents, when a remedy by way of appeal under Sections 128 and 129A of the Customs Act is available, the petitioner is disentitled to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted a consignment of RBD Palm Oil and had filed a Bill of Entry No. 5409602, dated 1-3-2018. On the same date, i.e. on 1-3-2018, the effective rate of duty for RBD Palm Oil was sought to be increased from 40% to 54% by issuance of Notification No. 29/2018-Customs, dated 1-3-2018. However, the said Notification was published in the official website by the respondents only on 6-3-2018. 11. The Government had taken a decision to do away with the physical printing of the notification in their Office Memorandum dated 30-9-2015. In the said Memorandum, it was stated that it had been decided in consultation with Department of Legal Affairs to switch over to exclusive e-publishing of the Government of India Gazette Notification on its website with effect from 1-10-2015 and to do away with physical printing of Gazette Notification. It was further stated that the date of publishing shall be the date of e-publication on the official website by way of electronic gazette in respect of Gazette Notifications. The Gazette Notification can be accessed and downloaded/printed from the official e-Gazette on free of cost. The Ministries were also directed to give wide publicity to the above Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t no refund shall be ordered unless the claimant establishes that he has not passed on the burden to others. Sub-section (3) of the amended Section 11-B is emphatic. It leaves no room for making any exception in the case of refund claims arising as a result of the decision in appeal/reference/writ petition. There is no reason why an exception should be made in favour of such claims which would nullify the provision to a substantial degree. So far as "lack of incentive" argument is concerned, it has no doubt given us a pause; it is certainly a substantial plea, but there are adequate answers to it. Firstly, the rule means that only the person who has actually suffered loss or prejudice would fight the levy and apply for refund in case of success. Secondly, in a competitive market economy, as the one we have embarked upon since 1991-92, the manufacturer's self interest lies in producing more and selling it at competitive prices -- the urge to grow. A favourable decision does not merely mean refund; it has a beneficial effect for the subsequent period as well. It is incorrect to suggest that the disputes regarding classification, valuation and claims for exemptions are fought only for....