Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No.75968 of 2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 17/10/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)

CESTAT Kolkata held that benefit of preferential rate vide Notification 53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011 not deniable as Certificate of country of origin from Malysia Chamber of Commerce for subsequent import of identical goods afterward submitted.

Facts- The appellant filed a Bill of Entry under EDI System for payment of Customs duty on import of Anhydrous Ammonia. Consequent upon approval of the self-assessment of the Bill of Entry under Risk Management System and upon payment of Customs duty, the clearance of such goods was allowed for home consumption. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim application stating that the import of Anhydrous Ammonia of Malaysian Origin is liable to preferential rate of Basic Customs Duty @ 2% under Notification No.53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011 as amended, whereas they have paid duty @ 5% on such goods, which is refundable to them.

The show-cause notices were issued to the appellant on the ground that as the Bills of Entry have been finally assessed in EDI System and the appellant has not challenged the assessment of duty done through RMS in EDI and paid duty so assessed through TR-6 Challan. Since the appellant has not challenged the assessment order, the claim for refund of duty is not admissible. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the orders of the adjudicating authority rejecting refund claims. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

Conclusion- The only objection raised by the Revenue is that the said Certificate of Origin is not as per the format under exemption Notification and not issued by the Malysia Chamber of Commerce. We find that the appellant has produced the Certificate of Origin issued by the manufacturer/supplier and for the subsequent imports, the appellant has been able to produce the Certificate issued by the Malysia Chamber of Commerce from the same supplier of the identical goods under the Bills of Entry in question. Therefore, the appellant has subsequently complied with the condition of the Notification.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031