The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the refund claim of import duties under Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962 thereby granting relief to M/s. Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd.
The appeal was filed by the department against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs ( Appeals ) who rejected the appeal filed by the department against the sanction of refund by the original authority.
The AR appeared and argued for the department. It was submitted that the respondent had filed the refund claim under section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962 for refund of the import duties paid by them in consequence of the goods having been re-exported and that the respondent would be eligible for drawback only and the Commissioner ( Appeals ) has directed for adjustment in drawback and rejected the appeal filed by the department.
It was further contended that the refund claim filed under Section 26A of the Customs Act itself is erroneous and therefore the original authority ought not to have sanctioned refund. It is prayed that the appeal may be allowed.
The counsel Ganesh Aravind appeared and argued for the respondent. At the foremost, it was submitted that the appeal filed by the department is hit by litigation policy as there is no legal question involved and that the issue is also not recurring in nature. The amount involved being less than Rs.50 lakhs, as per the litigation policy in regard to Customs cases would apply and the appeal filed by the department has to be dismissed in limine.
It was submitted by the learned counsel that the facts are that the respondents had imported goods and thereafter had intended to re-export them. They had paid the entire anti-dumping duty as well as Basic Customs Duty before export of the goods. Thereupon, the respondent preferred refund claim under section 26A of the Customs Act for refund of the import duty as the goods are being re-exported. The said application for refund was sanctioned by the original authority after making due verification of the amount paid as well as on inquiry that the goods have not been cleared by the respondent for home consumption.
A Two-Judge Bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that “On perusal of records and also considering the submissions made by both sides, we note that the main grievance put forward in the grounds of appeal filed by the department is that the respondent is not eligible for refund filed under section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962. It is to be noted that the department does not deny the claim of the respondent for eligibility of drawback. This aspect has been taken note of by the Commissioner ( Appeals ) who has directed the respondent to make a representation for claim of drawback. Further, the original authority has made inquiry and on verification found that the respondent is eligible for refund. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the department.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
