2024 (3) TMI 1112 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 84/2017-Cus instead of availing full exemption under Notification No. 93/2017-Cus. - order of assessment in appeal not challenged - HELD THAT - We find that on identical facts, this Tribunal has taken a matter for consideration in the case of M/s. Uma Export Ltd. 2023 (10) TMI 1176 - CESTAT KOLKATA . As the issue has already been dealt by the Tribunal, we hold that when two beneficial Notifications are applicable to an assessee, it is the choice of the assessee to take the benefit of the Notification which is more beneficial to the assessee. Further, in this case, the respondent had initially filed an application u/s 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for amendment in the Bill-of-Entry which was pending before the ld. adjudicating authority. Thereafter, the respondent filed their refund claim. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT is applicable to the facts of this case as before filing the refund claim, the respondent had sought amendment in the Bill-of-Entry. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is upheld - In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal concerns the refund claim sanctioned by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for the respondent.

Summary:
The respondent filed a Bill-of-Entry and paid customs duty at a certain rate, later realizing they were not liable to pay duty as per a different notification. An application for amendment was made under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was not acted upon. A refund claim was then filed, initially rejected by the adjudicating authority but later allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue appealed, arguing that the refund claim is not maintainable as the assessment of the Bill-of-Entry was not challenged. They contended that the more beneficial notification should apply, and thus the refund claim should be rejected. The respondent cited a Tribunal case where a similar refund claim was upheld. The Tribunal held that when two beneficial notifications are applicable, the assessee can choose the more advantageous one. The respondent was found entitled to the benefit of the relevant notification, and the decision in another case was deemed not applicable due to no ambiguity in the notification. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.