2018 (2) TMI 87 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - interpretation of statute - sub-section (2) of section 129D of the Custom Act, 1962 - case of Revenue is that review order was mechanically issued without application of mind; hence, the review order falls foul of the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - It is not the dispute of the respondent that the grounds of appeal were different from the points or reasoning given in the file note sheet - the drafting of the appeal papers in the form CA2 required is just a procedure to implement the directions given by the Commissioner for filing the appeal. The legal requirement embedded in sub-section (2) of section 129D ibid has very much been followed and complied with. The matter is remanded back to the lower appellate authority to consider the appeal filed by the department afresh on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of section 28C and 28D of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Legality of the appeal drafted by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Compliance with the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of provisions of section 28C and 28D of the Customs Act, 1962
The case involved the importer, M/s. Redington India Ltd., filing eight bills of entry for clearance of digital video discs without claiming a specific notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and extended the benefit of the notification, leading to a refund claim by the importer. The department challenged this, citing sections 28C and 28D of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that duty details were not prominently indicated on documents. The Tribunal observed that the legal requirement of indicating duty had been followed by the importer, and the appeal was allowed by remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Issue 2: Legality of the appeal drafted by the Commissioner (Appeals)
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the department, citing procedural faults in the drafting subsequent to a review order. The Tribunal noted that the appeal drafting process, as per sub-section (2) of section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, required the Commissioner's approval, which was duly obtained after considering the legal inadequacies pointed out in the file notings. The Tribunal found the appeal drafting compliant with legal requirements and set aside the lower appellate authority's decision, remanding the case for fresh consideration.

Issue 3: Compliance with the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962
The Tribunal clarified that the Commissioner's satisfaction on the need for an appeal, along with the grounds, was evident from the file notings, which were approved before the appeal filing. The appeal papers were in the prescribed format and contained the necessary grounds approved by the Commissioner. The Tribunal concluded that the legal requirements were met, dismissing the lower appellate authority's findings as unfounded and remanding the matter for a fresh review, ensuring both parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of duty indication, appeal drafting legality, and compliance with statutory requirements, ultimately remanding the case for a reevaluation while upholding the importer's compliance with duty indication regulations and the legality of the appeal drafting process.

← Previous Next →