2017 (3) TMI 538 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 1st March 2002 - the impugned order demonstrates non-application of mind and is a non-speaking order - Held that - the order impugned before the first appellate authority disposed off refund application dated 8th May 2006 without complying with the prescription in section 27 of the CA, 1962 - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-appeal for refund of additional duty; Allegation of non-speaking order; Compliance with Customs Act section 27 for refund application.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue contested the order-in-appeal seeking a refund of additional duty collected despite eligibility for exemption. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the original order without proper reasoning or citation of case law, leading to allegations of non-application of mind and a non-speaking order. The appellant did not appeal the assessment order, but the first appellate authority scrutinized the bills of entry. The impugned order was challenged for lacking a connection between the grounds of appeal and its contents, indicating a lack of seriousness and application of mind.

2. The grounds of appeal and the authorization under section 129A of the Customs Act highlighted the appellant's entitlement to CVD exemption, citing relevant notifications. The lower authority's rejection of the CVD exemption claim without a speaking order was deemed inadequate. The Committee of Commissioners directed the lower authority to issue a speaking order within a specified time frame, disposing of the appeal accordingly, which left little room for grievance.

3. The order under appeal disposed of a refund application without complying with section 27 of the Customs Act. The refund sanctioning authority identified deficiencies in the application, including the absence of an order-in-appeal setting aside the assessment, as mandated by Supreme Court decisions. The refund application was returned with instructions to submit the order-in-appeal or reassess the bill of entry. The impugned order directed the refund sanctioning authority to issue a speaking order, which did not prejudice the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was rejected, and the case was disposed of.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges to the order-in-appeal for refund, the issue of non-speaking orders, and the compliance requirements under the Customs Act for refund applications. The decision provided detailed analysis of the grounds of appeal, the lack of connection with the impugned order, and the need for speaking orders in such cases. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with statutory provisions and legal precedents in refund applications to ensure fairness and proper adjudication.