2018 (8) TMI 567 - AT - Customs

Refund Claim - rejection on the ground that the Bill of Entry was not reassessed for arriving at the quantum of refund. Held that - The issue whether the appellant can claim refund without challenging the assessment is already settled in the case of Fresenius Medical Care India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2018 (7) TMI 103 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that the refund claim cannot be rejected for the reason that the assessment was not challenged. The matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who is directed to verify whether the appellant has paid excess duty - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claim due to procedural irregularity of not reassessing the Bill of Entry.
2. Whether the appellant can claim a refund without challenging the assessment.
3. Requirement of remanding the matter to verify excess duty payment and eligibility for refund.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim due to procedural irregularity
The appellants filed a refund claim which was rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis that the Bill of Entry was not reassessed for determining the refund amount. The appellant approached the Tribunal challenging this decision.

Issue 2: Claiming refund without challenging assessment
The appellant's counsel cited precedents like Micromax Informatics Ltd. case and a judgment of the High Court of Madras to argue that challenging the assessment is not a prerequisite for claiming a refund. The Tribunal also referred to the Fresenius Medical Care India Pvt. Ltd. case and concurred that a refund claim cannot be rejected solely on the ground of not challenging the assessment.

Issue 3: Remanding the matter for verification
After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the refund claim based on the procedural irregularity was unjustified. However, in response to the argument raised by the respondent's representative, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. The authority was directed to examine whether the appellant had indeed paid excess duty, and if so, to assess eligibility and sanction the refund accordingly. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand to the adjudicating authority for further verification and action.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents relied upon, and the final decision of the Tribunal to remand the matter for proper verification and consideration of the refund claim.