Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Piramal Enterprises Ltd vs Cc Airport Ch - I on 6 June, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III
Customs Appeal No. 41324 of 2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.78/2014 (M-I) dated 13.10.2014
passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), 26/1, Mahatma
Gandhi Marg, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034)
M/s.Piramal Enterprises Limited .... Appellant
(formerly known as M/s.Piramal Healthcare Limited),
Ennore Express Highway,
Ennore,
Chennai 600 067.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of GST &
Central Excise, ... Respondent
26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
APPEARANCE :
Ms. S.R. Nandhini, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. N. Satyanarayana, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No.40586/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 27.01.2025 DATE OF DECISION :06.06.2025 2 Per: Shri P. Dinesha The appellant is a 100 % EOU engaged in the manufacture of organic compounds. They were availing the benefits of Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003 and Notification No.22/2003-C.Ex dated 31.03.2003 for procurement of raw materials and capital goods.
2. The Ammonium Persulphate imported by the Appellant vide two Bills of Entry dated 18.01.2010 and 21.06.2010 was destroyed in a fire accident that occurred in the Appellant's Export Oriented Unit (EOU) on 09.07.2010. The Appellant thus sought remission of the Customs Duty paid on these imports. The Appellant paid Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) under protest and sought refund thereof. As the Customs Duty paid had been reimbursed by the Appellant's insurer, the claim for refund was restricted to the ADD.
3. By the Order-in-Original No.85/2012 dated 31.12.2012 this claim for refund was rejected and also ordered for payment of interest amount of Rs.85,740/- on the delayed payment of ADD as well as imposed penalty of Rs.10000/-
under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 72 of the Act. On appeal, the First Appellate 3 Authority vide OIA No. 78/2014 (M-I) dated 13.10.2014 upheld the demand of interest; however set aside the penalty. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed before us.
4. Having heard submissions on behalf of the parties, we find that the identical issue came up for consideration before a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in relation to the remission of duty owing to same fire by accident in appellant's own case vide Final Order No.41129/2023 (in Appeal E/41296/2014) dated 19.12.2023. The relevant portions of that order are reproduced below:
"4. Heard both sides.
5. It needs to be stated that the refund claim though preferred for Rs.10,79,768/- and interest of Rs.12,832/-, the claim in this appeal is limited to refund of Rs.8,55,993/-, being the ADD paid by the appellant. It is submitted by the appellant that the insurance company, reimbursed the customs duty (excluding the anti-dumping duty) and therefore, they are not claiming for refund of Rs.2,23,775/- and interest of Rs.12,832/- being customs duty paid by them.
5.1 The appellant has enclosed 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 4 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 duty for the reason that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions stipulated under Notification No.52/2003 CUS dated 31.03.2003.
5.2 The Learned Counsel has adverted to Section 9A (2A) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which reads as under:
Prior to 28.03.2021 [(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and subsection (2), a notification issued under sub-section (1) or any anti-dumping duty imposed under sub-section (2), shall not apply to articles imported by a hundred percent, export-oriented undertaking unless,: -
(i) specifically made applicable in such notifications or such impositions, as the case may be; or
(ii) the article imported 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, and in such cases anti-dumping duty shall be levied on that portion of the article so cleared or so used as was leviable when it was imported into India.
Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "hundred percent export-oriented undertaking'' shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (1 of 1944)]."
After 28.03.2021 [(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and subsection (2), a notification issued under sub-section (1) or any antidumping duty imposed under sub-section (2) shall not apply to articles imported by a hundred percent export oriented undertaking 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 5
(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 expression "special economic zone" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (za) of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (28 of 2005.)] 5.3 The above provision of law as it stood prior to 28.03.2021, as well as after the said date, provides that the anti-dumping duty shall not apply to articles imported by 100% EOU or a unit in a Special Economic Zone, unless it is specifically made applicable in the notification. 5.4 In the present case, Notification No.96/2007 CUS dated 29.08.2007, which imposes the levy of anti-dumping duty on the goods does not make any mention that it is specifically made applicable to EOU/SEZ. The second condition is that the goods imported are either cleared as such into DTA or used in the manufacture of any goods that are cleared into the DTA. The goods having been destroyed in fire, there is no occasion of the goods cleared as such into DTA or used in the manufacture of finished products for clearance into DTA. 5.5 The department has relied upon Notification No.5/1994 CUS dated 18.11.1994. The said notification also states that only if the goods are cleared as such into DTA or used for manufacture of finished products and are cleared into DTA, the exemption of the notification would become ineligible. 5.6 The goods imported were destroyed in fire and therefore, there is no requirement to look into the fulfilment of the conditions of Notification No.52/2003 dated 31.03.2003. We find that the appellant is eligible for remission of duty. Having been paid under protest, the appellant is eligible for refund.
65.7 In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any."
5. Respectfully following the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench (supra), this appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in open court on 06.06.2025 ) (M. AJIT KUMAR) (P. DINESHA) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) gs