2023 (7) TMI 1066 - AT - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - Reopening of Self Assessment - Department never came in appeal against setting aside of the assessment order by the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT - In the first round of litigation, an assessment was made by the party and the assessment order were duly approved by the departmental officers and duty was paid under protest. The so-termed self assessment order were set aside by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to require original authority to issue a fresh order as there was lack of cooperation by the department in providing all the relevant documents. The original authority also had the same predicament of not having the relevant records but overlooked that the self assessment orders were in any case set aside, continued to proceed and concluded that he is not competent, not being a proper officer to reopen the same. This is in complete defiance of order of Ist appellate authority. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), in the second stage he also expressed opinion in his findings that a person has to be aggrieved by self assessment to litigate the matter further. At this belated stage where the documents are not available with the department and this thing has been repeatedly coming on record and that the duty was paid under protest, the party is entitled to relief and matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the benefit of the Notification sought by the party after due examination of the same, as per law specially provisions of Section 149. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the applicability of a specific Exemption Notification for the period of April 2015 to July 2015, the validity of self-assessment orders, and the authority of the appellate bodies in setting aside assessment orders for de novo consideration.

Exemption Notification Claim:
The appellant had paid duty under protest and appealed to claim the benefit of a concessional rate of CVD at 1% under a specific Exemption Notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed de novo consideration due to lack of records to verify the appellant's claims, emphasizing the need for suitable directions for a fresh decision. The Commissioner relied on previous cases to support the power of remand even after amendments to the Central Excise Act. The appellate authority set aside the assessment orders for de novo adjudication by the assessing authority within a specified timeframe.

Validity of Self-Assessment Orders:
The original authority, despite the direction for de novo adjudication, considered the assessment orders as final and non-est, stating a lack of power to revisit them. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the second round endorsed this view, emphasizing that self-assessment cannot be reopened, as the importer self-assessed the duty leviable on the goods. The Commissioner upheld the lower authority's decision, rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant. However, the appellant argued that self-assessment is an assessment like any other and can be challenged through appeal, citing relevant case laws.

Authority of Appellate Bodies:
The appellate bodies, including the Commissioner (Appeals), faced challenges in dealing with the self-assessment orders and the lack of cooperation in providing relevant documents. Despite the self-assessment orders being set aside for fresh consideration, the original authority and subsequent appellate authority expressed reluctance to revisit them. The appellant sought relief and a remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a proper examination of the benefit sought under the Notification, considering the duty paid under protest and relevant legal provisions.