TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 28.04.2021, the request of the petitioner for refund of the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) made by the petitioner during the pendency of the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) proceedings pursuant to a Circular No.11/2001-Cus dated 23.02.2001 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes has been rejected with the following observations:- "02. I have carefully gone through the refund application and relevant documents filed in support of the claim and the evidences available on record. I find that the finalization of the subject Bills of Entry was completed by the appraising groups between 2016 to 2018, whereas the refund application has been filed by the claimant only on 17.12.2020. 03. I find that the claimant had failed to file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t), Chennai Vs. Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (321) E.L.T.583 (Mad.) and that of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. Hitachi Koki India Pvt. Ltd., 2012 (281) E.L.T.207 (Kar.). 4. It is submitted that the petitioner imported goods from its parent Company namely M/s.Nittan Valve Company Limited, Japan (Nittan Japan). Since the goods were imported by the petitioner from its related parent Company, the imports were investigated by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB), Chennai and that during June 2014, proceedings were initiated by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB), Chennai. 5. It is submitted that as was required under Board Circular No.11/2001-Cus dated 23.02.2001, the petitioner started to pay 1% of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration for licenses granted LICENSEE pursuant to Article 2.1(a) and (b); and (c) A royalty equal to one percent (1%) of the NET REVENUES accruing for all LICENSED PRODUCTS which are sold as consideration for a license granted LICENSEE pursuant to Article 2.1(c). The definition of "Net Revenue" as per the agreement is furnished below: 1.4. "NET REVENUES" as used herein shall mean the aggregate sums invoiced by LICENSEE for any and all sales of LICENSED PRODUCTS, less actual returns, applicable discounts, sales commission, freight allowances, packing and crating costs, insurance costs, local sales or turnover taxes, if any, and direct import from NITTAN in which raw material, semi-proposed products, finished ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, 2007. This is issued with approval of the Principal Commissioner. This is forwarded for necessary action as per CBEC Circular No.05/2016 dated 09.02.2016." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that for the imports made between April 2014 to March 2016, refund application filed by the petitioner was also sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) vide Order-in-Original No.71064 of 2019. 8. As far as the refund claim made by the petitioner on 17.12.2020 for the goods imported between April 2016 to July 2017, the respondent has taken a contra view stating that the petitioner refund claim was time barred in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. It is further submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 3 SCC 1. (iii) East India Commercial Company Limited, Calcutta Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.). (iv) Tvl.Sri Sabari Tex Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and another, 2021 (3) TMI 288. (v) Vadilal Gases Limited Vs. Union of India, 2016 (332) E.L.T. 625 (Guj.) (vi) Global United Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Cus. (Refund), Chennai, 2019 (368) E.L.T. 1041 (Mad.) (vii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Vs. UCAL Fuel Systems Limited, 2014 (306) E.L.T. 26 (Mad.) (viii) Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others Vs. Commercial Steel Limited, 2021 SCC Online ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efund claim made by the petitioner on 17.12.2020 for the imports made by the petitioner between April 2016 to July 2017 is time barred. A reference was also made to the decision of the Tribunal (CESTAT) in GMMCO Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, rendered in Appeal Nos.C/65-67/2003 vide Final Order Nos.797-799/2004 wherein, the Tribunal had rejected the revision claim under similar circumstances. 14. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner who have filed a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 within the stipulated time therein a....