2002 (1) TMI 112 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on Notification No. 4/97.
2. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
3. Applicability of speaking order requirement for challenging assessments.
4. Interpretation of judgments of the Supreme Court in M/s. Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India and CCE, Kanpur v. M/s. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd.
5. Adjudicating authority's power under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Applicability of principles under Central Excise law to Customs Act cases.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported recycled plastic granules and filed a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on Notification No. 4/97. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, stating that once duty is paid and assessed finally, refund cannot be claimed unless the order is set aside.

2. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the rejection, citing judgments of the Supreme Court in M/s. Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India and CCE, Kanpur v. M/s. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. The appellants contended that no speaking order was issued for the assessments, allowing them to challenge through a refund claim.

3. The appellants argued that since no speaking order was issued, they had the right to challenge the assessments through a refund claim. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessment on the Bill of Entry itself is final and appealable, and without contesting the assessment initially, the appellants cannot claim refund later.

4. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in CCE, Kanpur v. M/s. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that the right of appeal is a substantive right, and not appealing against an order precludes later challenges through refund claims. The principle laid down in this judgment was deemed applicable to Customs Act cases as well.

5. The Tribunal highlighted the quasi-judicial nature of the adjudicating authority's power under Section 47 of the Customs Act, emphasizing that the exercise of this power confers and denies rights to importers and revenue. The Tribunal found no fault in the decisions of the lower authorities based on this interpretation.

6. Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the principles established under the Central Excise law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, are equally applicable to cases under the Customs Act, reinforcing the rejection of the appeal. The judgment of the Larger Bench in C.C., Cochin v. Arvind Exports (P) Ltd. further supported the quasi-judicial nature of the authority's power under the Act.