Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Komatsu India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 40514 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/01/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Komatsu India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)

It is not the case of the Revenue that what the appellant claimed was the refund of the duty paid and there is also no dispute that the appellant claimed only the security deposit made. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) has considered a similar issue and has ruled as under:-

“4. The issues involved in the present case are squarely covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Aristo Spinners Ltd., 2008 (226)  E. L. T. 42 (Mad.) = (2008) 4 TNLJ 517 decided by a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (KRPJ) is a party, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in which both of us are parties in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports) v. M/s. Jraj Exports (P) Ltd., 2007 (217) E.L.T. 504 (Mad.) = 2007 (3) TNLJ 532, wherein we have held that the bank guarantee cannot be regarded as equivalent to payment of duty and it is only furnished to safeguard the interest of the Revenue in case of non-fulfilment of export obligation. Section 27 which speaks about the refund of the duty cannot be pressed into service to deny refund of the amount covered under the bank guarantee which has been negotiated by the department. In the decision in the case of Jraj Exports (P) Ltd., referred to supra, this Court has taken in aid the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, 1994  (70) E.L.T. 48 (S.C.) = 1994 (2) SCC 546.”

From the above, it is very much clear that refund claim of the security deposit is not governed by the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act and consequently, I am of the view that the lower authorities have clearly erred in rejecting and confirming the rejection of refund claimed of the security deposit by invoking the provisions of Section 27(1) ibid.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER

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
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031