2018 (12) TMI 1432 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - refund rejected on the ground that they had not filed appeal against the earlier assessment order - Held that - This Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation observed that the goods were exported on 23.9.97 and thereafter re-imported, processed and re-exported within six months. Thus, it was concluded that the conditions of the Notification No. 158/95-Cus are satisfied - rejecting the refund claim in the denovo proceedings stating that the original order rejecting the refund claims were not challenged, is contrary to the remand order of this Tribunal dt. 18.3.2004, hence deserves to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Notification No. 158/95-Cus for re-imported goods; Rejection based on failure to challenge original assessment order; Compliance with conditions 4(b), (c), and (d) of Notification No. 158/95-Cus.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim under Notification No. 158/95-Cus for goods re-imported after initial export for quality improvement. The appellant sought clearance for the returned goods and paid duty under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The refund claim for Countervailing Duty (CVD) was filed within the prescribed time limit under the Customs Act but was rejected by the adjudicating authority. The appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed, leading to an appeal before the CESTAT. The Tribunal remanded the matter to examine compliance with conditions 4(b), (c), and (d) of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The appellant obtained a certificate from the Central Excise Authority confirming fulfillment of these conditions.

In the denovo proceeding, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the refund claim, stating that the appellant had not challenged the original assessment order. The appellant contended that this ground for rejection was beyond the scope of the CESTAT's remand order. The Tribunal found that the goods were re-imported, processed, and re-exported within the required timeframe, satisfying the conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The appellant had also obtained permission to reprocess the goods. The Tribunal held that rejecting the refund claim based on the failure to challenge the original assessment order was contrary to its remand order and set aside the impugned decision, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.

Therefore, the Tribunal's decision set aside the rejection of the refund claim and allowed the appeal, emphasizing compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus for re-imported goods and highlighting the error in rejecting the claim based on the failure to challenge the original assessment order.