2022 (7) TMI 882 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - appeal rejected on the ground that once the reassessment of bill of entry is finalized they cannot file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on merit on the ground that reassessment is not possible once the bill of entry is self assessed. In view of the above Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT , it is mandatory that if an assessee wants to challenge the assessment of bill of entry, he should file appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as the assessment of bill of entry is appealable order therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) should not have rejected the appeal on the ground that the reassessment is not possible, he should have passed the order on merit. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to pass afresh order on merit.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of self-assessment on bill of entry; Reassessment possibility once bill of entry is self-assessed; Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) post self-assessment.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed challenging the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal on the basis that post reassessment of a bill of entry, no further appeal can be filed. The appellant argued, citing a recent Supreme Court judgment, that if no benefit was claimed during the initial assessment of the bill of entry, the appeal challenging the assessment can only be made before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue supported the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide a merit-based decision due to the belief that reassessment post self-assessment was not possible. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing that any person aggrieved by an order of self-assessment can appeal under Section 128, which includes orders of self-assessment. The Court clarified that an order of self-assessment is appealable, and the provision does not limit appeals to only reassessment orders. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have rejected the appeal solely on the grounds of reassessment impossibility, but should have decided on merit. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed for a fresh decision on merit by the Commissioner (Appeals).