2023 (10) TMI 123 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - rejection on the ground that the declaration as stipulated under condition 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. not filed - other ground for rejection is that there is no finding in the Order-in-Original to the effect that the goods imported tally with the goods sold - HELD THAT - The respondent has not filed cross objections or a written reply against the appeal. The issue involves determining the authority who has to decide on the merits of the refund claims. A question of the power to remand lies at the heart of the appeal. Delay in a decision on this issue does not help even the respondent in settling his claims. The matter can move forward on merits only when placed before the proper authority for consideration. Adjournments will only delay statutory relief. Hence the matter is decided based on the legal position that has evolved and the issues available on record, as applicable. Having original powers in matters related to assessment as per the statute, it was expected of the lower authority to examine and dispose of the matter on merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not vested with any powers to remand a matter under consideration with a direction for the issue to be reviewed once again and if necessary to file a fresh appeal under the Customs Act, 1962. The amendment brought out in the sections pertaining to the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001, is a part of a beneficial legislation to ensure that matters are disposed of quickly and must be respected. Similarly, the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) being a statutory one he cannot act in breach of the provisions under which he functions. His powers are circumscribed by the conditions of the Customs Act 1962. The issues stands restored back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a de novo decision - lower authority shall follow the principles of natural justice and afford a reasonable and time bound opportunity to the appellant-department and the respondent to state their case on merits both orally and in writing - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include refund claims related to 4% SAD against the import of furniture, sanctioning of claims, review orders by the Commissioner, directions given by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand a matter, and the legal position regarding remand under the Customs Act, 1962.

Refund Claims and Review Orders:
The case involved five refund claims totaling Rs. 28,66,920/- filed by a company against the 4% SAD paid on imported furniture. The first four claims were sanctioned, but the fifth claim was reviewed by the Commissioner due to missing declarations on invoices and lack of confirmation that imported goods matched those sold. The Commissioner directed a review, leading to appeals by the Revenue against this decision.

Powers of Commissioner (Appeals) to Remand:
The Revenue contested the Commissioner (Appeals) directing a review and fresh appeal, arguing that such directions were not sanctioned by law under the Customs Act, 1962. They cited instructions and legal precedents to support their position that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the authority to remand a matter for a fresh appeal, emphasizing the need for a decision based on the legal provisions.

Legal Position and Decision:
The judgment highlighted the legal position that the Commissioner (Appeals) retains the power of the adjudicating authority in matters of assessment. It emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot remand a case for a fresh appeal, as per the amended provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a new decision in line with the law, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles and a time-bound process for resolution.