2020 (1) TMI 717 - AT - Customs

Refund of differential duty - Benefit of N/N. 69/2011-Cus dated 29.07.2011 - rejection on the ground that the bill of entry has not been challenged - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the appellant was eligible for the exemption notification but they have not claimed the same in the bill of entry and paid excess duty. Thereafter they filed the refund claim without challenging the bills of entry under which the duty was paid. It has now been decided by the Larger bench of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE KOLKATA -IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT that no refund can be claimed once assessment is finalised without challenging the assessment even if such assessment was done under self assessment procedure. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Claim for refund of excess customs duty paid due to preferential trade agreement not claimed in the bill of entry.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order rejecting a refund application for excess customs duty paid by a fertilizer manufacturer on imported sulphuric acid from Japan. The manufacturer realized later that the goods were covered by a preferential trade agreement for exemption under Notification No. 69/2011-Cus. The appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority, leading to the present appeal.

The main issue was whether the manufacturer could claim a refund for the excess duty paid without challenging the assessment in the bill of entry. The Tribunal noted that the manufacturer was eligible for the exemption but failed to claim it in the bill of entry, resulting in the payment of excess duty. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Larger bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd, which held that no refund could be claimed once assessment was finalized without challenging the assessment, even if it was under self-assessment procedure.

The Tribunal found that the appeal fell within a narrow compass, as the manufacturer did not challenge the assessment in the bill of entry and then sought a refund without contesting the initial duty payment. Citing the precedent set by the Apex Court, the Tribunal concluded that the manufacturer was not entitled to a refund under these circumstances. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, affirming the decision of the lower authorities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund application, emphasizing the importance of challenging assessments before seeking refunds, even in cases of self-assessment. The judgment highlighted the need for claimants to adhere to procedural requirements and claim exemptions correctly at the time of import to avoid payment of excess duties and subsequent refund challenges.