TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim of refund on 21.02.2024 for Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) amounting to Rs.5,08,628/-, paid against 02 Bills of Entry No. 2774040 dated 15.02.2021 and 7055380 dated 12.01.2022. The said two Bills of Entry which were assessed by the assessing officer on account of related supplier and EDD @5% was collected, at the time of assessment. The said Bills of Entry were finalized with no addition to the declared value. Accordingly, the Appellant filed the Refund Application after finalization of said Bills of Entry on account of excess duty payment as security deposit at the time of provisional assessment. 2.2 The Assistant Commissioner (Refund), Noida Customs vide Order-in-Original No. 19/AC/Refund/ Noida Customs/2024-25 dated 01.07.2024 sanctioned the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 3,26,972/- and rejected the claim of Rs. 1,81,656/- holding that the claimed amount of Rs.1,81,656/- pertains to Bill of Entry No. 7055380 dated 12.01.2022 and the claim is hit by limitation as the assessment was finalized on 12.01.2022, whereas the present refund claim was filled by the party on 21.02.2024 i.e. after one year of prescribed time limit. 2.3 Aggrieved by the Order dated 01.07.2024, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#11162; Appellant returned the loan of Rs. 181656/- to the promoter, vide Bank payment Voucher No. 545 dated 07.03.2022 for Rs. 5001275/- vide Cheque No. 000794 dated 07.03.2022. Total amount of journal voucher No. 801 dated 21.01.2022 is Rs. 1198351/-. The Customs Duty amount of Rs. 181656/- is part of the voucher. Payment was made through Bank Voucher 545. The Chartered Accountant certificate was also submitted for reference. ⮚ Credit and Debit vouchers clearly show that the transaction to deposit the Customs duty against BOE No. 7055380 dated 12.01.22 is in the nature of loan by promoter to subsidiary company. ⮚ In the Note 16 of the Balance Sheet for the year 2021-22 the amount claimed as refund has been shown to be recoverable from the Custom Authority. While considering the matter in appeal first appellate authority referred to the Note in balance sheet of 2020-21 to hold that this is not reflected so hence the burden of extra duty claimed as refund has been passed on, and not borne by the appellant. ⮚ The impugned order which has been passed in illegal arbitrary and perverse manner without taking note of above is to be set asid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IGST INPUT 5% 13,330 7 SGST INPUT 27,39,186 8 SVB Load 46,83,718 9 SGST INPUT (HO) 2,76,168 10 Recoverable from custom authority (2020-21) 3,26,972 TOTAL 7,57,95,012 This is the amount pertaining to BOE No. 2774040 dated 15.02.2021, which was refunded to the Appellant. However, the amount of Rs 1,81,656/- has not been shown as recoverable from Customs authority in the Balance Sheet (2020-21), as is evident from above pasted Note of Balance Sheet. Therefore, as the same has not been shown as recoverable in the Balance Sheet, the Appellant's submission that the same was borne by them is not tenable. Accordingly, I hold that the adjudicating authority was justified in stating that incidence of duty was passed to M/s Global Autotech Ltd. Also as per proviso to Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the importer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to any other person; then only the refund amount instead of being credited to the Fund, is to be paid to the applicant. 4.3 Memora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the period of one year as prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 16. I find that party filed Bill of Entry No. 7055380 dated 12.01.2022, which were provisionally assessed by the assessing officer on account of related supplier and EDD @5% was collected. At the time of provisional assessment the party deposited Extra Duty of Rs.1,81,656/-. Further, the said Bill of Entry was finalized without loading of further duty, on the basis of Investigation report No SVB/CUS/91/2019 dated 11.02.2022 (DIN 20220274NC000000B68E) passed by the Appraiser (SVB), O/o the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), Special Valuation Branch, New Customs House, New Delhi110037. Thus, I find that the party has paid duty in excess of Rs.1,81,656/- in respect of Bill of Entry No. 7055380 dated 12.01.2022, hence, eligible for the refund of Rs.1,81,656/-. 17.1 Now, let me examine whether the party have satisfied the clause of unjust enrichment in respect of their Extra Duty Deposit against said Bill of Entry No. 7055380 dated 12.01.2022. I find that the party has produced a certificate dated 06.02.2024 issued by the Chartered Accountant Shri Manish Kejariwal, Partner of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2024. The refund of Rs. 3,26,972/- has been allowed in the favour of the Appellant and is not in dispute. However the refund claim for EDD deposited in terms of B/E No 7055380 dated 12.01.2022 though held admissible has been ordered to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund as authorities below have concluded that the appellant has passed the burden of EDD and not borne it. 4.5 In respect of the EDD deposited, appellant had made following entries in the Notes to the Balance Sheet for the respective years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2024-25 are reproduced below: BALANCE SHEET NOTE NO 14 (Financial Year 2020-21) BALANCE WITH TAXING AUTHORITY/ AUTHORITIES 1 CGST INPUT 27,39,186 2 CGST INPUT (HO) 2,76,168 3 IGST INPUT 6,21,30,627 4 IGST INPUT (HO) 50,161 5 IGST INPUT -RCM 25,59,496 6 RCM IGST INPUT 5% 13,330 7 SGST INPUT 27,39,186 8 SVB Load 46,83,718 9 SGST INPUT (HO) 2,76,168 10 Recoverable from custom authority (2020-21) 3,26,972 TOTAL 7,57,95,012 BALANCE SHEET NOTE NO 16 (Financial Year 2021-22) BALANCE WITH TAXING AUTHORITY/ AUTHORITIES 1 CGST INPUT 60....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the Appraiser (SVB). I do not find any reason to hold that the refund of this amount paid through loan from principal can be said to be hit by the principles of unjust enrichment. Appellant have produced the Chartered Accountant Certificate dated 10th October 2025 which is reproduced below: I find that the transaction between the appellant and their principal is a separate transaction whereby loan has been advanced by the principals to the appellant. The loan amount received by the appellant from their principal cannot be said to be the part of the transaction of clearance of the imported goods from Customs for which the burden of duty has been passed on to the recipients of the goods after clearance of the goods. In this case the recipient of the goods after clearance from the customs is the appellant-importer who has used these goods in their process of manufacture. For application of the principles of unjust enrichment, the burden should have been passed on to the party who is part of the same transaction, i.e. if the goods were sold after the importation to the buyer of the goods. As the burden of EDD deposited has been borne by the appellant as evidenced by the Cert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs Houses, no security in the form of EDD shall be obtained from the importers. However, if the importer fails to provide documents and information required for SVB inquiries, within 60 days of such requisition, security deposit at a rate of 5% of the declared assessable value shall be imposed by the Commissioner for a period not exceeding the next three months. Simultaneously, the importer shall be granted a further period of 60 days to comply with the requisition for information & documents. If the importer fails to submit documents within this extended period, the Commissioner in charge of SVB may consider the use of other provisions of the Customs Act for obtaining documents / information from an importer for conducting investigations. In no case shall the imposition of Security Deposit exceed the period of three months specified above. Furthermore, the Board has also decided that the importer would be free to choose whether the Security Deposit to be provided for the purposes of provisional assessment shall be by way of cash deposit or a Bank Guarantee. The form of Bond to be initially furnished by the importer is attached as Annexure D. The form of Bond to be used in a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority on the ground that it was barred by time. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal. The appellate authority held that, the refund claim that has been preferred by the assessee is not customs duty, but it is extra duty deposit. Thus, this amount cannot be equated with the duty payable by the assessee against the import of the goods by them. At the moot, it can be treated as a pre-cautionary measure to cover up/make good the difference of duty payable by them after completion of final assessment. Therefore, the appellate authority held that the time limit stipulated under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable in the instant case. The provisions under Section 18(1) and 18(2) could have been followed and refund would have been granted automatically after completion of final assessment and cancellation of PD bonds. In coming to that conclusion, he relied on two judgments of the Tribunal at Bangalore and Chennai and thus the order of the assessing authority was set aside and a direction was issued to refund the money. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the said reasoning, dismissed the appeal. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner has a remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act. And second, that the appellant had not quoted the order passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was directed to be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation in respect of any application or any appeal. 14. Both the grounds, as stated in the counter affidavit, are bereft of any merit. 15. Respondent no. 1 has misdirected itself in considering the petitioner's request for refund of the balance amount of Rs. 13,53,326/- made on 22.07.2022 as a fresh application. The said request was in continuation of the proceedings relating to the application for refund dated 19.02.2019. Thus, the question of the petitioner's claim being barred by limitation does not arise. 16. In view of the above, the second ground that the petitioner had not quoted the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (supra), does not arise in the present case. 17. Notwithstanding the ab....