9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in terms of Notification No.52/2003 CUS dated 31.03.2003, which got destroyed in a fire accident that took place in the factory premises on 09.07.2010. 1.1. The appellant requested for remission of duty vide letter dated 13.09.2010. The appellant paid customs duty of Rs.2,23,775/- along with interest of Rs.12,837/- vide challan dated 16.12.2010. Further, they also paid Rs.8,55,993/- towards anti-dumping duty (ADD) on 11.04.2011. 1.2. The appellant had informed the department vide letter dated 27.04.2011, that the duty has been paid under protest. Later, the appellant preferred refund claim of Rs.10,79,768/- along with interest of Rs.12,832/- on the grounds that they are entitled for remission of duty on goods destroyed in the fire and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not impose the levy on goods imported by an EOU. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the imported goods have got destroyed within the EOU and it has not been cleared at all from the EOU in DTA. Under the circumstances, the levy of ADD is not applicable on the ammonium persulphate imported by the EOU and which got destroyed in the fire accident within the EOU. Therefore, the appellant has erroneously paid ADD on such goods destroyed and they are entitled for the refund of the same. Though the appellant has specifically put forth their submissions based on the above provisions contained in Section 9A(2A) before the lower authorities, they have neither considered the same nor recorded any finding in this regard. 3. The Learned AR, Shri. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a letter dated 27.04.2011, which shows that the anti-dumping duty has been paid by them under protest. The Show Cause Notice dated 08.11.2011, alleges that as the goods were imported duty free under Notification No.52/2003 CUS dated 31.03.2003 and were destroyed by fire, the conditions stipulated in the notification no.52/2003 dt.31.03.2003 have not been fulfilled by the appellant and therefore, the appellant is not eligible to claim exemption under Notification No.52/2003 dated 31.03.2003. It is also the view of the department that for the same reason the appellant is not eligible for exemption from ADD, as per Notification No.5/1994 CUS dated 18.11.1994, in as much as the goods imported were not wholly exempted from payment of customs dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king or a unit in a special economic zone, unless: - (i) it is specifically made applicable in such notification or to such undertaking or unit; or (ii) such article is either cleared as such into the domestic tariff area or used in the manufacture of any goods that are cleared into the domestic tariff area, in which case, anti-dumping duty shall be imposed on that portion of the article so cleared or used; as was applicable when it was imported into India. Explanation - For the purposes of this section: - (a) the expression "hundred percent export-oriented undertaking" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (i) of Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944.); (b) the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
