P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Ahmedabad - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (26 Jul 2022)

Extra Duty Deposit be refunded without filing of refund claim

MANU/CS/0179/2022

Customs

Present appeal has been filed by China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd against denial of refund of Extra Duty Deposit paid by them in terms of CBEC Circular No.11/2001 relating to cases handled by Special Valuation Branch of the customs house.

The Appellant was engaged in import of 'Silicon Electrical Steel of Cold Rolled Full Hard (unannealed)' from China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order is non-speaking and passed without application of mind. He argued that the 1% EDD, paid by the appellant as per Circular No.11/2001-Cus during the provisional assessment of the bills of entries, is only a security deposit and not a payment of duty. He argued that since it is not a payment of duty, provision of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 will not apply to the refund claim filed by the appellant.

The Appellants would be entitled to automatic refund of EDD without filing of application for refund under Section 27 of the Act, 1962. The High Court in case of Commissioner of Customs (Export) Chennai vs. Sayonara Exports held that, there is no need to file any refund application and the order for refund can be made suo moto.

The Appellant was not even required to file refund claim and Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) should have been refunded without filing of refund claim. In present circumstances, if and when the refund claim was filed by the Appellant cannot be treated as barred by limitation. Appeal is allowed.

Tags : EDD   REFUND   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved