2015 (11) TMI 84 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess duty paid to claim exemption under Notification No. 119/2008-Cus. - re-assessment / amendment of the bills of entry - Imported Ferro Molybdenum Held That - assessing officer has a duty to assess according to the law and refusal to amend the document would result in an irregular assessment - amendment has to be allowed when a request is based on documentary evidence which was in existence at the time of clearance - In terms of provisions of Section 149 appellant is eligible for amendment Decision made in case of Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2009 (6) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No. 577/2010 dated 28.9.2010
- Eligibility for concessional basic duty @ 5% under Notification No. 119/2008-Cus.
- Re-assessment of bills of entry for refund claims
- Appeal filed beyond the period of limitation
- Interpretation of Section 149 and Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962
- Amendment of documents under Section 149
- Relevant case laws supporting the appellant's claim
- Argument of the Revenue regarding finality of assessment order

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by Steel Authority of India Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No. 577/2010 dated 28.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. The issue revolved around the import of Ferro Molybdenum and the subsequent discovery of eligibility for concessional basic duty @ 5% under Notification No. 119/2008-Cus. The appellant filed refund claims after clearance of goods at 10% duty, which were returned as premature by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds).

2. The appellant's request for re-assessment of bills of entry was denied by the lower authority, citing the need to challenge the assessment order first, as per the decision in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected on the grounds of being beyond the period of limitation, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The appellant argued that the assessment order should be modified either through an appeal or re-assessment of goods after amending the bill of entry, citing relevant case laws such as Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others. The Revenue contended that Section 149 would not apply as the assessment order had become final, thus no refund claim could be entertained.

4. The Tribunal analyzed Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the allowance of amendments based on documentary evidence existing at the time of clearance of goods. Referring to the decision of the High Court of Mumbai in Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Union of India, the Tribunal highlighted the duty of the assessing officer to assess goods according to law, even in cases of inadvertent errors or oversights by the importer.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for amendment under Section 149 and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The decision was supported by the High Court's ruling, emphasizing the duty of the assessing officer to make amendments in cases of irregular assessments. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the relevant case laws cited during the proceedings.