Utt. HC: Conditional Liberty Must Override Statutory Embargo Under NDPS Act  ||  Utt. HC: While Exercising Inherent Jurisdiction, HC Does Not Function As Court of Appeal or Revision  ||  Pat. HC: Alcohol Consumption Cannot be Conclusively Proved Through Breath Analyzer Report  ||  Ker. HC: Emp. Messaging in Pvt. Whatsapp Group About Safety of Company Doesn’t Attract Disc. Proc.  ||  Ker. HC: Circular Issued to Enable Service of Notice, Summons Through E-Post in Trivandrum  ||  Gau. HC: Compensation Denied Over Death of Man Not Proved to be Bonafide Passenger  ||  Madras HC: Public Service is Being Performed by Lawyers, They Cannot be Denied Funds  ||  Gau. HC: Compensation Awarded to Wife of Deceased Driver Enhanced  ||  Bom. HC: Bar Council of Mah. & Goa Directed to Take Action Against Lawyer Who Appeared Without Band  ||  Delhi High Court: Bail Granted to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Liquor Policy Scam Case    

Suchi Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T.- Vadodara-I - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (01 Apr 2021)

If Refund is delayed by three months after filling Application for Refund, claimant becomes eligible to get interest

MANU/CS/0020/2021

Customs

The Appellant has filed present Appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise, wherein SAD refund of Rs. 54,733 filed on 11th October, 2010 and BCD Refund claim of Rs. 2,79,924 filed on 12th November, 2011 have been rejected.

Appellant is a manufacturer and exporter of "Stainless Steel Washers "having manufacturing unit in Special Economic Zone, Sachin. Stainless Steel Scrap of CTH 72042190 was generated during the process of manufacture, which was cleared from SEZ unit to DTA on payment of customs duty in terms of Section 30 of the SEZ Act 2005. Appellant claims to have paid "5% BCD instead of 2.5% BCD" in respect of total 10 Bills of Entry and claims to have paid excess amount of Rs.2,79,924 towards Basic Customs duty (BCD) and claims to have paid 4% SAD in excess in Bill of Entry No. DTA/673/2010-11 dated 27th July, 2010. Refund claims of excess BCD of Rs.2,79,924 and SAD of Rs.54,733 were filed, which were rejected on the grounds that, there were no provisions and powers for allowing Refund under SEZ Act/Rules.

Present Tribunal finds three conditions necessary [(1) eligibility to Refund (2) claim within time limit of One year and (3) unjust enrichment] for allowing refunds. Appellant have satisfied the conditions. Accordingly, the Appellant is eligible for BCD Refund of Rs, 2,79,924 and SAD Refund of Rs. 54,733 claimed for Excess BCD and excess SAD paid at the time of clearance of Stainless Steel Scrap from SEZ unit to DTA.

There is no dispute that, SAD refund of Rs. 54,733 was filed on 11th October, 2010 and BCD Refund claim of Rs. 2,79,924 was filed on 12th November, 2011.It is settled law that, after filling Application for Refund, if Refund is delayed by three months, claimant also becomes eligible to get interest after three months from the date of filling refund application. This is provided in Section 27A of the Customs Act 1962. Accordingly, Appellant is eligible for Interest under Section 27A of Customs Act 1962 read with the decisions in case of New Kamal vs. UOI - 2020 which has allowed interest @ 6 %. Appellant is eligible for "interest" in terms of section 27A of Customs Act 1962. Appeal allowed.

Tags : REFUND   INTEREST   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved