The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that a refund of excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid on imported goods can be granted even if the self-assessed Bills of Entry are not challenged, provided unjust enrichment is not established.
Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, imported mobile phones and paid CVD at a higher rate during various periods in 2014 and 2015, without claiming the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in SRF Ltd. v. CC, which clarified eligibility for concessional duty under the notification, Nokia filed refund claims for the excess duty paid.
Read More: CBIC Imposes 5-Year Anti-Dumping Duty on Textured Tempered Glass Imports from China and Vietnam [Read Notification]
The refund claims were initially rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the appellant had not challenged the self-assessed Bills of Entry and had not proven that the incidence of duty was not passed on to customers. In one case, a refund claim was also rejected as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act.
Are You Paying Tax on Someone Else’s Income? Know the law! Click here
On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) held that challenging the self-assessed Bills of Entry was not necessary for claiming a refund, but rejected the claims on the ground of unjust enrichment. Nokia then appealed to the CESTAT.
Read More: CBIC exempts Basic Customs Duty on Works of art and Antiques [Read Notification]
The appellant argued that the issue of maintainability of the refund claim had already been settled in its favour and that the department had not challenged this finding. The appellant further submitted that it had not passed on the duty burden to customers and relied on a Chartered Accountant’s certificate accepted in earlier cases by CESTAT Benches at Delhi, Hyderabad, and Ahmedabad. Nokia also argued that the refund claim filed on October 14, 2015, for duty paid on October 14, 2014, was within the one-year statutory period when the date of payment was excluded, as per the Limitation Act and General Clauses Act.
Are You Paying Tax on Someone Else’s Income? Know the law! Click here
The two-member bench comprising Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) observed that the issue of maintainability could not be reopened since it had attained finality. The tribunal accepted the Chartered Accountant’s certificate as valid proof that the duty was not passed on to customers. The tribunal also agreed that the refund claim was not time-barred, as the relevant date should be computed excluding the date of payment.
The tribunal ruled that Nokia was entitled to the refund and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
