9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 103 - AT - CustomsRefund of excess duty paid - refund rejected on the ground that claimant has not challenged the order of assessment against the said Bills of Entry - Held that - In the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. 2016 (3) TMI 431 - DELHI HIGH COURT the Hon ble High Court of Delhi relying upon its earlier judgment in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. 2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT reiterated that there is no necessity to challenge an assessment order and that the adjudicating authority is in error to reject the refund claim on the ground that self-assessment was not challenged - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Re-assessment of imported goods and denial of notification benefit. 2. Rejection of refund claims due to non-challenge of assessment order. 3. Applicability of amended provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Classification of imported goods under the correct tariff heading. 5. Requirement of a speaking order for re-assessment. 6. Legal precedents regarding the necessity to challenge assessment orders for refund claims. Detailed Analysis: 1. Re-assessment of Imported Goods and Denial of Notification Benefit: The appellants had imported dialyzers and accessories under two Bills of Entry dated 31.5.2013 and 3.6.2013. The assessment group re-assessed the items under the Bill of Entry dated 31.5.2013, modified the classification heading, and disallowed the notification benefit claimed under Sl. No. 474 (ii) of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.3.2012. The appellants paid the differential duty but later sought refunds, arguing that the goods should be assessed under Chapter 9018 instead of Chapter 8421. 2. Rejection of Refund Claims Due to Non-Challenge of Assessment Order: The original authority rejected the refund claims on the grounds that the appellants did not challenge the assessment order, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Blue Industries. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection for the Bill of Entry dated 31.5.2013 but allowed the claim for the Bill of Entry dated 3.6.2013, directing the original authority to re-examine the claim. 3. Applicability of Amended Provisions of the Customs Act, 1962: The appellants argued that under Section 2(ii) and Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, 'assessment' includes 'self-assessment,' and any re-assessment by the proper officer requires a speaking order within 15 days. They contended that no such order was issued, making it impossible to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). They also cited amendments effective from 8.4.2011, which altered the necessity to challenge assessment orders for refund claims. 4. Classification of Imported Goods Under the Correct Tariff Heading: The appellants pointed out that the classification issue was settled by the Tribunal's Final Order dated 24.8.2017, which classified the imported goods under CTH 90189031, entitling them to a refund of the excess customs duty paid. 5. Requirement of a Speaking Order for Re-assessment: The Tribunal noted that the proper officer must pass a speaking order on re-assessment within 15 days if the importer does not accept the re-assessment in writing, as per Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Legal Precedents Regarding the Necessity to Challenge Assessment Orders for Refund Claims: The Tribunal referred to several legal precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Micromax Informatics Ltd. and Aman Medical Products Ltd., which held that there is no necessity to challenge an assessment order for claiming a refund. The amended Section 27 of the Customs Act allows for refund claims without the conditionality of an assessment order. Conclusion: The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Priya Blue Industries decision due to the amendments effective from 8.4.2011. It found the facts of the present case consistent with the judgments in Micromax Informatics Ltd. and Aman Medical Products Ltd., which support the appellant's position. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing that the authority must consider refund applications even without an appeal against the assessment order.
|
