2019 (12) TMI 615 - AT - Customs

Claim of refund - Benefit of N/N. 515/86-Cus., dated 30.12.1986 - Requirement of issuance of Essentiality certificates issued by the Oil Industry Development Board - benefit of notification denied on the ground that the appellant could not able to produce those certificates - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact on record that at the time of filling the Bills of Entry for assessment, the appellant did not submit the requisite certificates issued by the competent authorities before the assessing authority and accordingly, the duty liability on merit was assessed, without extending the benefit provided under Notification No. 515/86 Cus., dated 30.12.1986. The said certificates were subsequently obtained by the appellant and submitted before the customs authorities along with the refund applications. In this case, the assessment made in the Bills of Entries was not appealed against by the appellant and also the said assessment had not been modified or altered by the assessing authority. In dealing with the situation of filing of refund application, without challenging the assessment order, the Larger Bench of Hon ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT have ruled that the scope of the provisions of refund under Section 27 ibid cannot be enlarged and the same has to be read with the provisions of Section 17, 18, 28 and 128 ibid. It has further been ruled that the provisions under Section 27 ibid cannot be invoked in the absence of amendment or modification having been made in the Bill of Entry, on the basis of which assessment has been made. In absence of challenge of the assessment order, refund application cannot be filed or entertained by the authorities - the rejection of the appeal filed by the appellant is in conformity with the statutory provisions - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for Customs duty exemption under Notification No.515/86-Cus.
2. Rejection of refund applications based on non-submission of essential certificates.
3. Scope of de novo adjudication and challenge to assessment orders for claiming refunds.
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding refund applications.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for Customs duty exemption under Notification No.515/86-Cus.
The case involved the importation of specific goods eligible for Customs duty exemption under Notification No.515/86-Cus. The appellant failed to produce essential certificates required for availing the exemption at the time of importation, leading to the assessment of duty on the goods.

Issue 2: Rejection of refund applications based on non-submission of essential certificates.
After obtaining the necessary certificates post-importation, the appellant filed refund applications seeking re-assessment of the Bills of Entry to avail the Customs duty exemption. However, the refund applications were rejected on the grounds that the goods were imported and cleared before the amendment of the relevant notification, rendering the certificates submitted belated and inadmissible.

Issue 3: Scope of de novo adjudication and challenge to assessment orders for claiming refunds.
The Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, focusing on the eligibility for refund based on the certificates submitted by the appellant. The appellant contended that the rejection of the refund benefit on new grounds beyond the scope of the remand directions was unjustifiable. However, the authorities emphasized that challenging the assessment order was necessary before filing refund applications, citing legal precedents to support their decision.

Issue 4: Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding refund applications.
The Tribunal referred to a recent judgment by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, emphasizing that refund applications cannot be entertained without challenging or modifying the assessment order. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions under Sections 17, 18, 27, and 128 of the Customs Act, stating that refund claims must align with the assessment orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal, emphasizing the legal requirement to challenge assessment orders before seeking refunds. The decision was based on established legal principles and the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions, ultimately dismissing the appellant's appeal.