Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Aban Loyd Chiles Off Shore Ltd. vs Cc on 19 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(110)ECC332, 2006ECR332(TRI.-CHENNAI)
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The appellants imported certain spares for offshore drilling jack up rigs and sought clearance for home consumption. The Bills of Entry filed by them were assessed and the goods were cleared on payment of duty. Later on, they filed refund claims, saying that the goods were exempt from payment of duty in terms of Sl. No. 216 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002. Such exemption was subject to the condition that a certificate from the Directorate-General of Hydrocarbons (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India) was produced to the effect that the imported goods were required for petroleum operations and had been imported under a Contract. Such certificates were also produced along with the refund claims. The original authority rejected the claims on the ground that the requisite documents for claiming exemption under the Notification were not produced at the time of importation of the goods and documentary proof against the bar of unjust enrichment was also not furnished. The appeals preferred by the assessee against the decision of the original authority were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeals.
2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the assessments made in respect of the goods were not provisional and that duty was paid without any claim for exemption. It is also a matter on record that the Bills of Entry were assessed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Such assessments made by the Assistant Commissioner were appellable under the Customs Act. The assessee could have applied to the appellate authority for the benefit of the above notification by fulfilling the condition laid down thereunder. Instead of doing this, they chose to file refund claims, which is not permissible in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases, for instance, Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs .
3. Learned Counsel has relied on the Tribunal's judgement in CC, Bangalore v. Deccan Aviation Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (74) RLT 278 (CESTAT - Ban.), wherein a refund claim filed by the party was held to be admissible. In that case, it appears, the benefit of exemption notification was claimed by the party at the time of clearance of the goods but they could not produce the requisite certificate in fulfil ment of the conditions stipulated for exemption. The goods were assessed to duty and were cleared on payment of the duty assessed. Later on, refund claim was filed and the above certificate was also produced therewith. It was this claim, which was allowed by the Tribunal. The facts of the instant case are distinguishable. Admittedly, the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was not claimed by the appellants at the time of clearance of the goods. Later on, realising that they were eligible for exemption under the above notification, subject to fulfil ment of the relevant condition, the party produced the requisite certificate from the Directorate--General of Hydrocarbons and filed refund claims. In other words, they chose to challenge the original assessments through refund claims, on the strength of the exemption notification. This is precisely what has been prohibited in Priya Blue Industries (supra). In the circumstances, the decision of the lower appellate authority has to be sustained. The appeals are dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)