Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Lava International Limited (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that that refund has to be granted to the respondent as the order for amendment in the Bills of Entry had attained finality.
Facts- M/s Lava International Limited (the respondent Importer) imported mobile phones with standard accessories for home consumption. Accordingly, 447 Bills of Entry were filed during the period May to July, 2014. These Bills of Entry were self-assessed u/s. 17 classifying the goods under CTH 85171290 of the First schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Additional Customs Duty also called CVD at the rate of 6% / 12.50% as leviable u/s. 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act read with Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 was paid. The Respondent importer did not claim exemption under Sl. No. 263A of the notification and had self-assessed CVD @ 6% / 12.50%. However, based on a subsequent order of the Supreme Court in SRF Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, the Respondent importer filed the refund claim for differential CVD, along with manually reassessed Bills of Entry, wherein CVD was leviable @ 1%.
The refund sanctioning authority sanctioned the claim noting that the Bills of Entry had been reassessed, and the claims were filed well within one year. The refund sanctioning authority also issued a corrigendum dated 31.07.2018 replacing the words ‘on payment of duty under protest’ by ‘against duty not paid under protest’ in paragraph 1 of the Order-in-Original dated 18.06.2018. The impugned orders were reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs, u/s. 129D, and appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who passed the impugned order upholding the Order-in-Original.
Conclusion- Delhi Tribunal in Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import), New Delhi Vs. Lava International Ltd. has held that that refund has to be granted to the respondent as the order for amendment in the Bills of Entry had attained finality.
Bombay High Court in Keshari Steels Commissioner of Customs, Bombay 2000 (115) E.L.T. 320 (Bom.), wherein what was examined was whether the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation contemplated under section 27 of the Customs Act was justified. It was held by the Bombay High Court that the refund was within time from the date the rectification was carried out and limitation was not to be counted from the date of assessment.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The present appeal is filed by the Department to assail the Order-in-Appeal No. CCA/Customs/D-I/Import/NCH/612-615/2020- 21 dated 20.08.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi wherein refund claims filed by the respondent importer was allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Lava International Limited (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Importer) imported mobile phones with standard accessories for home consumption. Accordingly, 447 Bills of Entry were filed during the period May to July, 2014. [These Bills of Entry are covered by the impugned four orders]. These Bills of Entry were self-assessed under Section 17 classifying the goods under CTH 85171290 of the First schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Additional Customs Duty also called CVD at the rate of 6% / 12.50% as leviable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act read with Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 was paid. The Respondent importer did not claim exemption under Sl. No. 263A of the notification and had self-assessed CVD @ 6% / 12.50%.
3. However, based on a subsequent order of the Supreme Court in SRF Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, the Respondent importer filed the refund claim for differential CVD, along with manually reassessed Bills of Entry, wherein CVD was leviable @ 1%. The details of four refund applications are as per table below:-
