AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that M/s. Navam Lanka Ltd. was the manufacturer and shipper of the goods. The appellant filed bills of entry dated 5.9.2018 and 11.9.2018 and claimed exemption from payment of BCD vide Notification No. 26/2000 dated 1.3.2000 under FTA. The said bills of entry were assessed to duty and facilitated under RMS. The appellant paid the IGST of Rs. 61,24,785/- on 5.9.2018 and 11.9.2018. The appellant was not able to get the original documents for taking delivery of the impugned goods. It was understood by the appellant that the supplier at Singapore had become bankrupt and was not in a position to provide the original documents. There was a huge demurrage and detention charges on the goods imported. The appellant filed application for refund of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. in this case) with applicable interest. However, the appellant was informed that the IGST payment of Rs. 61,24,785/- was adjusted by department towards IGST payable by M/s. Gravita India Ltd. under the amended bills of entry. Upon receipt of this information, the appellant filed a letter dated 30.11.2018 for withdrawing the application of refund of IGST which had been submitted on 9.10.2018. After filing the application for withdrawing the refund claim, the department issued a deficiency memo dated 11.12.2018 to the appellant. As the refund claim was already withdrawn, the appellant did not respond to the deficiency memo. A Show Cause Notice dated 6.2.2019 was issued proposing to impose penalty on the appellant under sec. 114AA of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the new purchaser. This was done after obtaining permission from the department. However, the duty paid by the appellant having been accepted by the department, the appellant came to know that the same cannot be refunded and has been adjusted towards the goods that are cleared in the name of M/s. Gravita India Ltd. For this reason, the appellant filed an application for withdrawing the refund claim. The department does not dispute the fact that the appellant has paid duty and also filed the application to withdraw the refund claim. Even after the application for withdrawal of the refund claim, the department has issued a deficiency memo dated 11.12.2018 requiring the appellant to furnish documents to process the refund claim. Later on, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey applied for the refund. Later on coming to know that even though the purchaser has filed the bill of entry, the duty amount cannot be adjusted, the appellant filed the application for withdrawing the refund claim. Without looking into the application filed by the appellant for withdrawing the refund claim, the department has issued deficiency memo requesting the appellant to furnish documents for processing the refund claim. The appellant did not attend to the deficiency memo only for the reason that since the application for withdrawing the claim has been filed by the appellant, the deficiency memo has become infructuous. He argued that there are no grounds for attracting the ingredients of section 114AA and that the penalty imposed can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efund. From the facts narrated above, it can be seen that the refund claim was filed on 9.10.2018 in a situation where appellant paid duty and was not able to clear the goods. The duty of Rs. 61,24,785/- having been paid on 5.9.2018 and 11.9.2018, the appellant filed refund claim since he did not find any ways to clear the goods. Later, the foreign supplier has arranged for a new purchaser and the NOC was issued by the appellant. It is understood from the facts of the case that by this time the duty paid vide bill of entry presented by the appellant was appropriated towards the imported goods. Even though the title of the goods were transferred to the new purchaser by amended bills of entry, the duty could not be collected from the new purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g firm appeared for personal hearing on 23.4.2019 and reiterated their reply dated 19.3.2019 in response to the SCN. They have also stated that SCN has been proposed to impose penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same is not invokable in this case. They have further stated that they have neither misdeclared nor made any misstatement nor made any false or incorrect details in the documents and therefore, penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is not invokable. They had nothing further to add." 13. The above being the fact, the conclusion arrived by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant did not reply to the Show Cause Notice did not appear for the personal hearing would establish the mens rea is ....