2008 (9) TMI 726 - AT - Customs

Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Amendment of documents, correction of clerical error - Held that - the case falls within the preview of Section 154 and Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the goods should be re-assessed. If that would have been the case, it was for respondents to approach Asst. Commissioner for invoking provision of Sections 154 and 149 of Customs Act, 1962 and he should have obtained a speaking order on the same and then could have challenged the same before Commissioner (Appeals) which is not so in the present case. After rejection of refund claim the assessee went in appeal. On such appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) cannot go on different footing and order de novo assessment which assessment was never a issue before him nor part of Asst. Commissioner s order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on mistaken declaration
2. Commissioner (Appeals) ordering re-assessment under Sections 154 and 149 of Customs Act, 1962
3. Appeal against refund claim rejection versus assessment

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim rejection by the Asst. Commissioner due to a mistaken declaration made by the respondents regarding the value of imported parts. The respondents had paid full duty based on this incorrect declaration, leading to a refund claim of excess duty payment amounting to Rs. 3,97,704. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the mistake genuine and invoked Sections 154 and 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, remanding the case for denovo assessment by the original authority.

2. The Revenue, in its appeal, contested the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, arguing that the appeal was against the rejection of the refund claim and not the assessment itself. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered re-assessment under Sections 154 and 149 without the respondents invoking these provisions before the Asst. Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal was solely against the refund claim rejection, and the Commissioner (Appeals) could not unilaterally order denovo assessment, which was not part of the initial assessment or appeal.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)' order and reinstating the original order-in-original. The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) overstepped by ordering re-assessment without the proper invocation of relevant provisions by the respondents before the Asst. Commissioner, emphasizing the limited scope of the appeal against the refund claim rejection.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the refund claim rejection, re-assessment order, and the distinction between appeals against refund claims and assessments, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision.