2003 (11) TMI 497 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund of Customs duty.

Analysis:
1. The appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal despite notice. An application by a consultant on behalf of the appellant was deemed insufficient as there was no formal authorization. The Tribunal proceeded with the appeal after finding the orders-in-original and orders-in-appeal legible, despite the absence of the appellant.

2. The appellant imported a consignment and filed a claim for refund of Customs duty, alleging a shortage in the received quantity compared to the imported quantity. The claim was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, citing lack of evidence to establish the alleged shortage and failure to exclude pilferage as a cause of loss. The Commissioner upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The departmental representative argued that the Asstt. Commissioner at Ambernath lacked jurisdiction to decide on the refund claim, as any short delivery would fall under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. However, the Tribunal found the question of jurisdiction irrelevant, as it concluded that the refund claim lacked merit after considering the appellant's contentions.

4. The appellant submitted a survey report by a purported government-approved inspection agency, stating the quantity handed over to the appellant. However, neither the Asstt. Commissioner nor the Commissioner (Appeals) referenced this report, and its submission to the Tribunal was deemed inappropriate, as it was not filed before the lower authorities.

5. Various objections were raised against accepting the refund claim, including the absence of crucial documents like the into-bond and ex-bond Bill of Entry. The Tribunal highlighted the applicability of Sections 13 and 23 of the Act concerning remission of duty in cases of pilferage, emphasizing the need for evidence to substantiate claims. As the appellant failed to prove that the alleged shortage was not due to pilferage, the claim for refund was dismissed.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the lack of substantiated evidence to support the refund claim and the failure to establish that the alleged shortage was not a result of pilferage.