2017 (6) TMI 882 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - denial on the ground that appellant did not protest the enhancement during the assessment but at a later date vide his letters, after the assessment was over as well as did not prefer any appeal to the appellate authority - Held that - the appellants are not entitled to claim refund unless they challenge the assessment order which has not been done in the present case - refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim due to enhanced value of imported goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner's order rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of excess duty paid on imported goods due to an enhanced value. The appellant imported raw silk, cleared it under Into-Bond Bill of Entry, and later cleared it under Ex-bond Bill of Entry for home consumption. The enhanced value at the time of clearance led to an excess payment of duty amounting to ?1,48,359. The appellant sought a refund or a speaking order explaining the enhancement, but the lower authority deemed the assessment final since the appellant did not protest during assessment or file an appeal. The Commissioner upheld this decision, prompting the present appeal.

The appellant argued that they protested the enhanced value through a letter and requested a speaking order as per Circular No.16/2003. They contended that previous court decisions cited by the Revenue did not apply to their case and criticized the lack of reasons or evidence for the value enhancement. Conversely, the Revenue argued that since the appellants did not challenge the assessment order, they were not entitled to a refund. They cited various court decisions to support their stance, emphasizing the necessity of challenging the assessment to claim a refund.

Upon review, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision, stating that the appellants could not claim a refund without challenging the assessment order. The Tribunal referenced the lack of challenge as the reason for upholding the impugned order and dismissing the appeal. The decision was pronounced in open court on 24/05/2017.