In Customs Appeal No.40747 of 2013-CESTAT- When two separate notifications give benefit of exemption, the importer has the option to avail benefit of any of these notifications, observes CESTAT (Chennai)
Members Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial) & M. Ajit Kumar (Technical) [28-04-2023]

Read Order: The Commissioner of Customs (Air) v. Dimension Data India Limited

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, May 1, 2023: The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has concurred with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal filed by the importer (Dimension Data India Limited), sanctioning refund, observing that no reassessment was required as to the Bill of Entry filed in respect of goods which were also eligible for the benefit of exemption of countervailing duty (CVD) as per Notification No.29/2010.

In the present case, the importer had filed an application for refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) levied under Section 3 (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for import of Information Technology Equipment covered under various Bills of Entries through Air Cargo Complex, Chennai. The refund claim was filed in terms of Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007. After due process of law, the original authority sanctioned an amount of Rs.37,98,594/- and rejected an amount of Rs.7,23,072/-, on the ground that Bill of Entry in regard to RSP based assessed goods has to be reassessed and refund claim has to be filed for the (CVD) paid by respondent under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

“As already stated, though the respondent may be eligible for benefit of CVD in terms of Notification No.29/2010, it is their option to avail or not to avail the exemption. They have later claimed refund of the CVD paid by them. The original authority has rejected part of the refund claim in regard to some of the goods for which the benefit of notification 29/2010 would be applicable, and held that without reassessment refund claim cannot be sanctioned as they are eligible for benefit of notification No.29/2010. This view does not find favour with us,” the bench remarked.