Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
German Remedies Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 27 September, 2001
JUDGMENT Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. After considering the application for stay of operation of the impugned order, we have, with consent of both sides, decided to take the appeal for disposal.
2. German Remedies Ltd., the appellant before us, deposited, in response to what is stated to be "persuasion" by the Directorate of Anti-Evasion Department, a sum of Rs. 1.04 crores approximately on 13.8.1999. The factor that influenced the Directorate of Anti-Evasion to "persuade" the appellant to deposit this amount was that it had not paid the duty correctly payable on bulk drugs manufactured in its factory at Patalganga and transferred to its factories at Andheri and Goa for conversion into finished drugs.
3. The appellant filed on 3.2.2000 a claim for refund of this amount on the ground that on merit this amount was not payable. The Deputy Commissioner found that the issue relating to valuation of the goods was under adjudication, a show cause notice having been issued, and dismissed the claim on the ground that it was premature. This order having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us.
4. By its order dated 20.4.2001 in appeal E/1802/200 of this appellant, the Tribunal has decided the issue relating to valuation of the goods transferred from the Patalganga plant to other plants. It has held that the extended period of limitation contained in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11AB of the Act would not be available and therefore set aside the demand of duty for the extended period. It has confirmed the demand for the normal period of six months and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for quantification of the duty amount payable. It was thus appropriate for the Assistant Commissioner to keep the issue pending till disposal of the appeal. Any person claiming refund has to do within six months of the relevant date prescribed in Section 11B of the Act, which in the relevant case is the date of payment of duty. We can therefore understand the reason for the appellant having field the refund claim.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Assistant Commissioner should now dispose of the refund claim, in accordance with law.