Refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) denied for want of challans ?? No more worries..
Updated: Sep 2
An importer had imported certain goods from its related party foreign suppliers which was referred to the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) to ascertain the correctness of the valuation. The SVB, Chennai passed accepting the declared value of the imported goods and it had also ordered for finalization of the provisional assessment, based on which the provisional assessments in respect of 56 out of 58 Bills-of-Entry were finalized.
Thereafter, the appellant had filed an application dated refund of the Extra Duty Deposit (‘EDD’ for short), which was paid for the imports during investigation when the Bills-of-Entry in question were provisionally assessed, etc.The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original sanctioned a partial amount of ₹ 31,22,770/- as against the appellant’s claim for ₹ 47,68,875/-, observing that the appellant/claimant had not furnished any evidence for payment of EDD with respect to 16 Bills-of-Entries.
Accordingly, they denied the refund to the extent of ₹ 16,39,900/-. On appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the First Appellate Authority also rejected the appellant’s claim by observing that the only requirement to process the EDD refund claim was submission of proof of payment of EDD and finally assessed Bills-of-Entry. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been field before CESTAT, Chennai and its order as follows;
The refund has been denied on the grounds that the RD challans have not been furnished as evidence for the payment of EDD with respect to 16 Bills-of-Entries and for this reason alone, they were not considered for sanctioning refund. It is also on record that the appellant had submitted an indemnity bond for its above lapse.
The CBIC has issued Circulars/Notifications for guidance of the Officers by prescribing documents that may be considered for granting refund. If the appellant offers indemnity bond with the support of a Chartered Accountant Certificate, then that could also be considered as a valid document while processing refund. Hence this case requires a relook by the Adjudicating Authority who shall afford reasonable opportunities to the Importer to offer all such supporting documentary evidences as may be prescribed under various CBIC Circulars/Notifications, which are also binding on the Adjudicating Authority, and then, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
M/S. TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS CC, CHENNAI, CESTAT CHENNAI Customs Appeal No. 40308 of 2021, Order No. - FINAL ORDER NO. 41755 / 2021 order dated 17 August 2021