HP HC: Adultery Not a Ground to Automatically Disqualify Divorced Wife from Receiving Maintenance  ||  Ker. HC: HRC Being Quasi Judicial Body is Duty Bound to Comply With Principles of Natural Justice  ||  Del. HC: Independent Assessment of Award in Appeal u/s 37 of A&C Act Cannot be Undertaken by Courts  ||  SC: Can’t Entertain Time Barred Contempt Petitions Accepting Bogey of Continuing Wrong  ||  SC: NGT’s Order Allowing Construction of Tiracol Bridge in Goa's Querim Beach, Set Aside  ||  Supreme Court: NIC Officials Directed to Meet NCDRC President to Resolve E-Filing Issues  ||  SC: Customs Duty to be Paid by Owner Even When Confiscated Goods are Redeemed by Paying Fine  ||  Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Announces Union Budget 2024  ||  Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Announces Union Budget 2024  ||  Del. HC: CCS Rules Denying Maternity Leave to Women with More than 2 Children, Needs Re- Examination    

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



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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved