2022 (1) TMI 1282 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the appraising group did not agree with the new classification claimed by the appellant, and also alleged deficiency that the appellant have failed to submit reassessed bill of entry - HELD THAT - The Revenue have entertained the refund claim and have adjudicated the same by holding that the goods in question - PPE equipment or personal protection outfits have been rightly classified under CTH 6203 49 90. Thus, the order-in-original dated 19-2-2019, is in the nature of reassessment order. It is further found that the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) have passed order in a mechanical way, by simply accepting the advice of the Appraising Group showing total non-application of mind. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous and misconceived wherein he observed that the refund claim is not entertainable for want of reassessment of the Bill of Entry in question - admittedly Revenue have been accepting the classification of the same goods under CTH 6210 10 00 both prior to and subsequent to the Bill of Entry in question. Thus, the whole exercise of Revenue in rejecting the refund is perfunctory and bad, and at the same time a colourable exercise of power. The appellant is entitled to refund of the excess amount of duty paid erroneously of Rs. 12,24,224/- - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of refund claim due to incorrect classification by the appraising group and failure to submit reassessed bill of entry.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Personal Protection Outfits (PPE Equipment) and mistakenly classified them under a different tariff item, resulting in excess duty payment. The refund claim was filed within 90 days of duty payment, including all required documents. However, the appraising group rejected the claim, stating the goods were not classifiable under the claimed tariff item.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Appraising Group-3, observed that the imported item did not fall under the claimed classification, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The appellant was asked for clarification and RTGS details but failed to respond adequately. The refund claim was deemed inadmissible based on the examination report.
3. The appellant appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), citing entitlement to reassessment under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Reference was made to a Delhi High Court ruling supporting the right to file a refund claim without challenging the assessed bill of entry.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that a refund claim cannot be entertained without modifying the assessment of the bill of entry. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, it was emphasized that the refund provision cannot be invoked without amending the self-assessment.
5. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the order was not a speaking order and violated principles of natural justice. It was contended that the refund claim was maintainable under the law in force at the time of filing. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's rejection of the refund claim was erroneous and allowed the appeal, directing the grant of the refund with interest.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the sequence of events, arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.