Page 133 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] 3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. ASSTT. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, NAGAPATTINAM 467

2479.035 MTs of the imported Palmolein was sold during the month of Au-
gust, 2001. The importer also submitted copies of the credit invoices issued
during the month of August, 2001. The quantity of the credit invoices tallies
with the sales register. On verification of the cost break of the imported
Palmolein, it is noticed that the total sales value of the subject imported
goods during August, 2001 works out to Rs. 8,12,07,043/- and the sales cost
of goods works out to 32,854/- per MT. The Assessable Value and the Duty
of the disputed goods works out to Rs. 6,16,94,366/- and Rs. 24,959/- per
MT without including the excess paid duty amount. The difference between
the sales value and imported cost is Rs. 7895/- per MT which works out to
31.63% which is incidentals and profit. The importer has informed that
profit and incidentals are normal only as per his e-mail dated 24-1-2018.
9. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has produced (i) copy of sales reg-
ister which shows that a quantity of 2479.03 metric tonnes of the product was
sold in August (ii) Credit invoices issued during the month of August 2001, tally
with the sales register (iii) the cost break-up of the product reveals the sale value,
and the duty in relation to the goods, without inclusion of differential duty re-
mitted and (iv) the profit and expenditure elements appear to be on par with the
claim of the petitioner for previous and subsequent years.
10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid position as well as the fact that, ad-
mittedly, the sales had been completed in August, 2001 whereas the differential
duty was remitted only in September, 2001, it appears clear to me as seen from
the records of the Assessing Officer and his observations in the impugned order,
that the incidence of duty has not been passed on in this case. There is thus no
necessity for remand as this exercise and the result thereof is quite apparent from
the existing records and the observations of the officer himself.
11. In the light of the discussion as above the impugned order is set
aside and the writ petition is allowed.
12. Now coming to the question of interest on the refund claim, the re-
quest for refund has been rejected by the authority invoking the provisions of
Section 27A of the Act. According to the revenue, the provisions of Section 27A
require interest to be paid on duty that has been ordered to be refunded under
Section 27(2) but not refunded within three (3) months from date of receipt of
application under Section 27(1) of the Act.
13. In this case the application was filed by the petitioner on 13-11-2017.
Hence refund if sanctioned, ought to be paid before 13-2-2018 without interest
and if the payment had been made after 13-2-2018, such refund would have car-
ried interest. The claim has itself been rejected on 9-12-2018 and thus, according
to the respondent, no interest is payable.
14. According to the petitioner, the provisions of Section 27A will not
apply in this case since what has been refunded is not a duty but an amount that
was not at all payable by the petitioner/liable to be collected by the revenue.
Such payment does not, according to the petitioner, bear the character of duty
and is hence not bound by the rigour of Section 27A.
15. Mr. Srinivas disagrees pointing out that every amount that is re-
funded would bear the character of duty for the purposes of Section 27A unless it
had been extorted without the authority of law and without there being a charg-
ing mechanism/provision to support such levy.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  133