Case Law Details
Biocon Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
Brief facts leading to the present dispute, inter alia, are that the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU); that the appellant had procured raw materials/inputs for the purpose of manufacture and export of its final products; that the importation of raw materials were allowed duty-free by virtue of Notification No.52/2003-CUS dated 31.03.2003; that the appellant had also procured certain indigenously manufactured goods duty-free as per Notification No.22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003; that the obvious purpose of these procurements of duty-free raw materials were for the manufacture of specified final product and the export thereon; and that certain quantity of such raw materials had become obsolete and unusable. This prompted the appellant to request the jurisdictional authorities for destruction of the same; that the Revenue insisted for the payment of duty involved which was paid by the appellant and only thereafter, the duty-free raw materials were destroyed under respective Mahazars, and that on 12.10.2012 & 14.04.2014 the appellant filed its claims for refund of the duty paid for the two periods involved, on the ground that the same was paid wrongly.
Revenue issued a show cause notice proposing to reject the above refund claims, which was seriously contested vide appellant’s reply thereto, but however, the said claims of the appellant were rejected vide respective Orders-in-Original against which the appeals were filed before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority also having rejected the appeals of the assessee, the appellant has assailed the same in these appeals.
Held by CESTAT: The perusal of the orders of the lower authorities does not allege that the appellant had not fulfilled the export obligation and accordingly, the ratio in the Saint Gobin Crystals (supra) of this Bench squarely applies. Moreover, the Notification No. 52 ibid as amended by Notification Nos. 30 and 34 ibid clearly prescribe vide new Condition No.8 which is extracted elsewhere in this order that no duty shall be leviable if raw material is destroyed within the unit after intimation to the Customs authorities. A conjoint reading of the amended Notifications as well as the ratio laid down in the case of Saint Gobin Crystals (supra), leads to the only possible inference that the Revenue authorities have erred in demanding payment of duty and consequently, the appellant is entitled for refund of the same.
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
