Case Details: HLG Trading vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (2026) 38 Centax 158 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
- Shri B. Satish Sundar, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Anu Ganesan, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant filed for a refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs on imported products, even though VAT/Sales tax applicable on such products as sold by them was nil/zero. Returns were filed and duly certified by a Chartered Accountant, showing compliance with the applicable VAT/Sales tax requirements. The Department did not dispute the filing or certification but questioned the admissibility of the refund on the grounds of zero VAT/Sales tax. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that a refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. is admissible despite the VAT/Sales tax applicable on the imported products being nil/zero. It was observed that the appellant had appropriately discharged the tax liability by filing returns certified by a Chartered Accountant, and that a nil rate of VAT/Sales tax qualifies as an appropriate payment under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the claim for a refund of Special Additional Duty could not be denied.
List of Cases Reviewed
- G.T. Jayanti Agrochem (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — W.P. Nos. 20995-20998 of 2016 & 2578-2581 of 2017, decided on 13-7-2020 by Madras High Court — Reversed [Para 3]
List of Cases Cited
- Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner — 2025 (391) E.L.T. 297 (Bom.) = (2024) 24 Centax 396 (Bom.) — Relied on [Paras 24, 26]
- Amicus Communications v. Commissioner — 2016 (338) E.L.T. 263 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 22]
- BPL Ltd. v. R. Sudhakar — (2004) 7 SCC 219 — Referred [Para 14]
- Commissioner v. Finacord Chemicals (P) Ltd. — 2015 (319) E.L.T. 616 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 16]
- Commissioner v. Gaytri Timber Pvt. Ltd. — 2019 (367) E.L.T. 772 (A.P.) — Referred [Para 16]
- Dish TV India Ltd. v. Union of India — 2018 SCC Online Del 10793 — Referred [Para 16]
- Elite Green Pvt. Ltd. v. Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance — 2023 (386) E.L.T. 245 Ker.) — Referred [Para 22]
- HLG Trading v. Commissioner — W.P. No. 37472 of 2016, decided on 24-1-2020 by Madras High Court — Relied on [Para 29]
- Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner — 2020 (374) E.L.T. 519 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 14]
- Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2023 (383) E.L.T. 528 (Mad.) = (2022) 1 Centax 81 (Mad.) — Relied on [Paras 24, 27]
- KSJ Metal Impex (P) Ltd. v. Under Secretary (Cus.), Ministry of Finance — 2013 (294) E.L.T. 211 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 16]
- Kutoba Agricultural Machinery India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 SCC OnLine CESTAT 4916 — Relied on [Paras 4, 5, 6, 29]
- Micromax Informatics Limited v. Union of India — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 968 (Del.) — Referred [Para 16]
- P.P. Products Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (367) E.L.T. 707 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 14]
- Principal Commissioner v. Riso India Pvt. Ltd. — 2016 (333) E.L.T. 33 (Del.) — Referred [Para 16]
- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India — 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 16]
- Shakun Overseas Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (297) E.L.T. 14 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 22]
- Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association — (1992) 3 SCC 1 — Referred [Para 14]
- Under Secretary (Cus.), Ministry of Finance v. Parmar International — W.A. No. 927 of 2013, decided on 25-4-2022 — Referred [Para 22]
- Union of India v. B.T. Patil & Sons — 2024 (388) E.L.T. 399 (S.C.) = (2024) 15 Centax 101 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 24, 25]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 6/2008-Cus. dated 28-4-2008 [Para 11]
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 869/7/2008-CX., dated 16-5-2008 [Para 20]
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 18/2013-Cus., dated 29-4-2013 [Paras 20, 21]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 [Para 28]
