The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad allowed Automatic Refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) to China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd.
The appellant, China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd had imported the goods from a related entity in Taiwan. The matter was referred to Special Valuation Branch and during the pendency of the investigation, the appellant deposited a 1% Extra Duty Deposit. The assessment was finally approved at the declared assessable value vide F.No.S/9-66/GATT/2014 GVC dated 04.02.2016 and therefore, the Extra Duty Deposit paid by the appellant became refundable to them. The aforesaid circular also prescribes that during the pendency of investigation by SVB, the assessment would be done on a provisional basis.
In the instant case, since the decision of the Special Valuation Branch came in favor of the appellant and the price declared by the appellant was accepted by the revenue the amount of Extra Duty Deposit paid by the appellant became refundable to them. Since the order accepting the declared value was passed on 04.02.2016 and the refund claim was filed on 24.01.2018, a show cause notice dated 13.03.2018 was issued seeking to reject the refund claim on the grounds of limitation.
The said show cause notice contained Table B which indicated the billwise date of final assessment which ranged from 24.09.2016 to 06.01.2016. Since the claim was filed on 24.01.2018 and the assessment was finalized during the pendency from 24.09.2016 to 06.01.2016, it was alleged that the claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation.
The Bench consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member, and Raju, Technical Member relied on the judgment in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) CHENNAI vs. SAYONARA EXPORTS and were in the High Court of Madras held that “the appellants would be entitled to an automatic refund of EDD without the filing of an application for a refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon’ble High Court held that there is no need to file any refund application and the order for refund can be made suo moto.”
The Tribunal also noted that “the appellant was not even required to file refund claim and EDD should have been refunded without the filing of refund claim. In these circumstances, if and when the refund claim was filed by the appellant cannot be treated as barred by limitation.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
