Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1136 - CESTAT MUMBAIValidity of Advance License on the date of Ex-bonding of goods - Advance licence was not valid on the date of filing e-Bond Bills of Entry but were later revalidated up to 30-7-2008. Therefore, even if they were revalidated later, they covered the period when the ex-bond Bills of Entry were filed - Held that:- the Customs allowed extension of the Bond period beyond 31-3-2008 which was denied by them earlier, so there would have been no problem for the appellant to wait till the Advance Licenses were got revalidated. Therefore, the appellant suffered only because the Customs refused to extend the Bond period beyond 31-3-2008 and no reason has been given by Assistant Commissioner of Customs to the appellant as to why further extension could not be granted to the appellant who are a PSU. It appears that, as is usual with the department, it was ambitious to get the huge amount of duty in furtherance of their objective of maximum revenue collection up to 31st March. Not granting extension of Bond period beyond 31-3-2008 when the Advance Licenses were still to be got revalidated from DGFT, is rather unfair on the part of the department. Had the department granted extension, this entire litigation could have been avoided. As the issue is more of a procedural nature than of a substantial nature, the Advance Licenses must be treated as valid at the time of ex-Bonding of goods. Refund claim - Admissibility - When the assessment not challenged by making any remarks about Advance Licenses on the Bills of Entry - Held that:- the appellants are eligible for refund followed by the judgment in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation v. Commissioner [2002 (4) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Refund claim - Bar of Unjust Enrichment - Held that:- the facts are not clear as to how the imported goods were dealt with, whether the imports were actually used to manufacture products for which prices have been fixed on import parity basis. Therefore, it needs to be looked into by the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided partly in favour of appellant
|