Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Dhl Logistics Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs-Ahmedabad on 26 February, 2018
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : C/10249/2018 (Arising out of OIA No. AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-137-17-18 dated 02.11.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs-Ahmedabad) M/s DHL Logistics Private Limited : Appellant (s) Vs Commissioner of Customs-Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri P. Bansal, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri K. J. Kinariwala, AR CORAM :
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision: 26.02.2018 ORDER No. A/10414 / 2018 Per : Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides.
2. This is an appeal filed against the order-in-appeal No. AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-137-17-18 dated 02.11.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs-Ahmedabad.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are CHA and during the relevant period i.e. in November 2015 on behalf of the importer M/s Apple India Private Limited, cleared different models of mobile phones subjected to MRP based assessment. In the present appeal only two models are dispute. It is the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant that even though, a communication was received from M/s Apple India Pvt. Ltd on 05.10.2015 revising the MRP of these two models from 47,000/- to 35,000/- and 65,000/- to 62,000/-, however, while clearing these mobile phones in November 2015, by mistake, they have assessed the CVD amount on the basis of old MRP, resulting into excess payment of duty of Rs. 16,47,947/-.
4. Ld. Advocate Shri P. Bansal for the appellant further submitted that even though before the authorities below they have adduced sufficient evidences in the form of communication received from overseas supplier, the same was not considered and the refund was rejected. He categorically submits that the revised MRP on the respective mobile sets affixed by the overseas supplier, but, they filed the bill of entry on the basis of the old MRP.
5. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that the appellant had not produced sufficient evidences before the authorities below to establish that the imported mobile phones have been cleared affixing the lower MRP. He has no objection in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification of this fact.
6. I find the present refund claim on the plea that even though the appellant are CHA of Apple India Pvt Ltd, cleared the goods, namely, I Phone 5s with 16 GB and I Phone 6s with 64GB affixed with the MRP 35,000/- and 62,000/- respectively, but, by mistake discharged CVD consider its old MRP as 47,000/- and 65,000/-. The authorities below rejected the claim observing that sufficient evidences were not produced by the appellant to justify the claim. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant CHA submits that the lower MRP on the respective mobile sets were affixed by the overseas supplier and communicated to them through their Indian counter part, namely, Apple India Pvt. Ltd. It is his contention that they are in possession of evidences to establish that the goods were cleared affixing lower MRP even though duty was paid on the higher MRP prevailing prior to 05.10.2015. In these circumstances, in my view, it is prudent to remand the matter to allow the appellant to submit evidences in this regard, in addition to the evidences available on record, before the adjudicating authority in support of their claim. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (D. M. Misra) Member (Judicial) G.Y. 1 Appeal No. C/10249/2018