9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refund claim for excess C.V.D. payment rejected based on assessment not being challenged. Analysis: The appellant imported stainless steel wire and paid customs duty at 20% + 16% as C.V.D., resulting in an excess payment of C.V.D. @ 8% amounting to Rs. 5,10,659. The appellant filed a refund claim for the excess C.V.D. paid, which was rejected on the grounds that challenging the assessment is a prerequisite for refund sanctioning. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the claim citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Flock India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing the validity of Section 27 of the Custom Act and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 relating to refunds. It was argued that once a refund claim is filed under Section 27, it must be considered by the Deputy Commissioner, and the assessment finality does not preclude the refund claim. The appellant also cited tribunal decisions in support. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and distinguished the Mafatlal case, clarifying that the issue of maintaining a refund claim when the assessment is final and unchallenged was not addressed in that case. Referring to the decisions in Flock India Pvt. Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries, the Tribunal emphasized that a refund claim contrary to the assessment order is not maintainable without modifying the assessment order through appeal or review under Section 28 of the Custom Act. It was reiterated that an officer considering a refund claim cannot sit in appeal over an assessment order. Based on the precedents and legal principles established by the Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found no fault in the lower authority's decision to reject the refund claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Commissioner (Appeal) order was upheld.
|
