The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Sony India Private Limited is entitled to claim a concessional rate of 1% CVD on mobile phone imports, as the company had not availed input credit and thus satisfied the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 12/2012-CE.
Sony India, the appellant, had initially paid 6% Countervailing Duty (CVD) at the time of importation under Sl. No. 263A(i) of Notification No. 12/2012-CE. Later, based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in SRF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which clarified the eligibility criteria for a 1% concessional rate under Sl. No. 263A(ii), the company sought reassessment of its Bills of Entry, claiming that it had not availed CENVAT credit on the inputs or capital goods.
Read More: Mere Mismatch in Gold Content in Dore Bar Imports Not Sufficient to Prove Customs Duty Evasion: CESTAT [Read Order]
Step by Step Guide of Preparing Company Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account Click Here
The company filed 114 appeals under Section 128 of the Customs Act, seeking the benefit of the lower rate. The adjudicating authority rejected the reassessment request, stating that the appellant had initially opted to pay duty at 6% and that the subsequent claim of 1% was an afterthought. This rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), who ignored the earlier remand instructions directing reassessment in line with the Supreme Court judgment.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the lower authorities failed to comply with the remand directions and that similar reassessment claims had been allowed in its own earlier cases across different Commissionerates.
They further argued that the self-assessment was legally challenged through the appeal route, and the reassessment request was procedurally correct. They cited the ITC Ltd. ruling, which laid down that a refund of duty is permissible only after assessment is modified under law, which includes an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act.
Read More: Relief for Hindustan Zinc Ltd: CESTAT Rules Structural Steel Used for Chimney Support Qualifies as Capital Goods, Eligible for Credit [Read Order]
3000 Illustrations, Case Studies & Examples for Ind-AS & IFRS Click here
The two-member bench comprising Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) found that the appellant had rightly approached the appellate route and that the original remand directions to reassess in light of the SRF Ltd. decision were not followed.
The tribunal rejected the department’s claim that the concessional rate was sought as an afterthought and explained that the appellant’s request was based on a settled legal position that applied to similarly situated importers. It also observed that various customs authorities had granted refunds post-reassessment in similar matters.
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the adjudicating authority to reassess the Bills of Entry and grant the benefit of the 1% concessional CVD rate under Sl. No. 263A(ii) of Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
