2016 (3) TMI 34 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Difference of duty paid at the time of clearance in terms of Notification No. 21/02 Sl. No. 344 - Mercedes Benz Car imported and cleared on assessment and payment of duty- Rejected as inadmissible since the assessment order or payment of duty, which became final did not challenged/protested- Held that It is evident that the appellant has not challenged the assessment made under the said Bill of Entry before Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, their claim was rejected by the AC/DC (refunds) on the ground of non-challenge of assessment order. Both the lower authorities had relied on the Hon ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of CCE Vs. M/s. Flock India Pvt. Ltd. (2000 (8) TMI 88 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. CC (Preventive) (2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India 2015 (8) TMI 673 - SUPREME COURT dismissed the civil appeal and upheld the Tribunal s order on the identical issue where the Tribunal by relying M/s. Priya Blue Industries case (supra) rejected the appeal on identical issue, where the Airport Authority of India has not challenged the assessment order and claimed refund. The ratio of the above Apex Court decision in the case of Airport Authority of India (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Therefore, claiming fulfilment of notification and relying on Board s circular not relevant as there was non-challenge of assessment order made under Bill of Entry. - Decided against appellant

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim on imported vehicle due to non-challenging of assessment order.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim for a Mercedes Benz Car imported by a trust. The Bill of Entry was assessed at a higher rate of duty than the applicable rate, leading to the refund claim. However, the claim was rejected by the authorities as the appellant did not challenge the assessment order before filing for a refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments.

The appellant argued that registration of vehicles is a mandatory requirement before export and should not disentitle the benefit of a refund. They presented documents supporting the registration of the car in the UK before shipment. The appellant also referenced Circulars and High Court orders to support their case.

On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the refund was rejected solely due to the appellant not challenging the original assessment order. They cited previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions where similar refund claims were rejected on the same grounds.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the main issue was the rejection of the refund claim due to the appellant's failure to challenge the assessment order before claiming a refund. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not challenged the assessment before filing the refund claim. Relying on Supreme Court decisions and previous Tribunal rulings, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal, emphasizing the legal requirement to challenge assessment orders before claiming refunds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the refund claim based on the legal grounds of non-challenging of the assessment order. The Tribunal found the appellant's arguments regarding fulfillment of conditions and reliance on Circulars to be irrelevant in light of the legal precedent set by Supreme Court judgments and previous Tribunal decisions. The appeal was rejected following the legal principles established in relevant case laws.