2015 (9) TMI 1607 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - Held that - the classification or valuation is not being contested by the assessee. It was just the case that due to ignorance/oversight, the appellant failed to claim the benefit of a notification which exempts the impugned goods from payment of duty in excess of 7.5% ad valorem - Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi 2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that when higher duties paid by inadvertence without taking benefit of a notification due to ignorance, refund claim can be filed subsequently without challenging the assessment order - appellant entitled to claim the refund without challenging the assessment. The refund claim should be considered on merit - If the refund is found to be admissible, it should be granted to the appellant only if the appellant discharges the burden of establishing that it had not passed on the burden to any person - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claims rejection based on final assessment - Maintainability of refund claims without challenging assessment - Applicability of Delhi High Court judgment in Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi - Classification and valuation not in question - Benefit of notification not claimed due to oversight - Refund claim allowed by remanding the case.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi challenged the Order-in-Appeal that upheld the Order-in-Original rejecting the appellant's refund claims. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the refund claims based on final assessment of Bills of Entry, citing the principle that once a Bill of Entry is finally assessed, it becomes an appealable order. The appellant contended that it had paid excess duty on goods unconditionally exempt from duty under a specific notification, which it did not claim due to oversight. The appellant argued that based on the Delhi High Court judgment in Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi, it was entitled to claim the refund without challenging the assessment.

The Departmental Representative referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Flock India to support the position that a refund cannot be claimed without challenging the assessment. However, the Tribunal noted that in the present case, the classification or valuation of the goods was not in question. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Flock India case where the classification was contested by the assessee. In the current matter, the appellant did not contest the classification or valuation but simply failed to claim the benefit of a duty exemption notification due to oversight.

Considering the legal precedents and arguments presented, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the primary adjudicating authority. The Tribunal directed that the refund claim should be considered on merit in light of the Delhi High Court judgment in Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi. If the refund was found to be admissible, it should only be granted if the appellant proved that the burden of duty had not been passed on to any other person. The appeal was disposed of based on these terms, providing clarity on the maintainability of refund claims in cases where the benefit of a notification was not claimed due to oversight.