2007 (7) TMI 453 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
11 appeals against Commissioner (Appeals) orders involving identical issue.

Analysis:
The case involved 11 appeals against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) that all revolved around the same issue. The Department filed 11 cross-objections supporting the Commissioner (Appeals) orders. The appellants, who were importing fertilizers at Bhavnagar port, cleared several consignments paying duty, including "stevedoring and barge charges" in the assessable value as per the assessment orders. They did not appeal against the assessment orders but filed refund claims. The original authority rejected the refund claims, stating that the stevedoring charges were for transferring goods from the ship to the barge, not from the barge to the jetty.

The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the charges described by the appellants as stevedoring charges were actually transportation costs for bringing goods from the mother vessel to the land mass of India, not included in the CIF value. He determined that the cost of bringing goods from the barge to the land mass could not be considered stevedoring charges. The Department argued that since the appellants did not challenge the assessment orders by filing appeals, the rejection of the refund claims was justified. They cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC (Prev.) to support their position.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and highlighted the importance of assessments in determining classification, exemption eligibility, and assessable value of goods under the Customs Act. They emphasized that appeals could be filed against orders of assessment, not just adjudication, under Section 128 of the Customs Act. Since the appellants did not appeal the assessment orders, the Asst. Commissioner handling the refund claim could not overturn the decisions made by the assessing authority. Referring to the judgment in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries, the Tribunal concluded that the officer considering a refund claim could not review an assessment order or sit in appeal over it.

Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, along with disposing of the cross-objections accordingly. The judgment was pronounced in court on 13-7-2007.