Case Law Details
Nirma Ltd Vs C.C.-Jamnagar(prev) (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the amount for which the refund claim was sought for by the appellant is deposit or duty and accordingly, whether the refund is governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act or otherwise.
The amount of Rs.16,39,458/- which the appellant is claiming as deposit was clearly paid as differential custom duty as is evident from the bond. It is further observed that the appellant has paid this amount of Rs.16,39,458/- vide TR6/GAR 7 Challan No.CUS/36/10-11 dated 03.02.2011.
From the aforesaid challan, it can be seen that under the Head of Account it is a customs duty which was paid under account heading No.0037 and also in the description coloumn it is clearly mentioned that the deposit of amount is equal to 20% of provisional duty therefore, the amount of Rs.16,39,458/-has been paid as customs duty only therefore it is not a deposit as has been claimed by the appellant but it is a custom duty. Since in view of the above documentary evidence, it is established that the amount for which refund was sought for by the appellant is not a deposit but it is a duty. Therefore, the refund is clearly governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore, all the provision of limitation and unjust enrichment, etc is clearly applicable.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
