TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back and such goods are exported or the importer abandons the goods or they are destroyed or rendered commercially valueless. Thus, all the conditions at (a), (b), (c) and (d) provided under Section 26A (1) are to be satisfied cumulatively - Sub-section (3) to Section 26A prescribes that no refund under sub-section (1) shall be allowed in respect of perishable goods and goods which have exceeded their shelf life.. . Thus, in my view, the scope of sub-section (3) is limited to the cumulative conditions under (a) to (d) of Section 26A (1) ibid. and the refund claim of any duty that has been paid could be entertained provided the said goods are cleared for home consumption. By ordering destruction, the imported goods in question could never b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021 dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, whereby the rejection of refund claim filed by the taxpayer under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as made by the Adjudicating Authority, came to be upheld. 2. Brief facts, that are relevant and undisputed, inter alia are that the appellant imported Vitamin Premixes from its parent company, which were to be used as raw materials in the trial products such as biscuits, chocolates, etc.; that four Bills-of-Entry were filed for clearance; that the appellant also paid Basic Customs Duty (BCD) on provisional assessment basis since the transaction between the appellant and its parent company was a related party transaction; that the Department directed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forum. 5. Heard Shri Santhana Gopalan D., Learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri M. Ambe, Learned Deputy Commissioner for the Revenue. 6. After hearing both sides, I find that the only issue that is to be decided is: whether the rejection of refund claim of the appellant, as confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, is in order? 7. After going through the impugned Order-in-Appeal, I find that the First Appellate Authority has confirmed the rejection of refund only on the ground that the refund claim of the appellant was hit by the provisions of Section 26A (3) ibid. This finding is specifically challenged by the appellant since, according to it, the claim for refund was under Section 27 only. 8.1 The provisions of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no dispute that the appellant paid the duty provisionally and the same is reflected in the orders of lower authorities, including the order of destruction dated 27.05.2015 and thus, in terms of clause (c) to sub-section (1B) of Section 27 ibid., the limitation (of one year), if at all, would apply from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof. I find that even there is no dispute that the Revenue authorities have not passed the final assessment order as yet, as could be gathered from the grounds-of-appeal. 10. In view of my above discussions, I am of the considered view that the authorities below have erred in rejecting the refund claim, in a haste, even before a final assessment could be made as required un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
