2011 (1) TMI 1007 - AT - Customs

Refund claim rejected - Classification - appeal of the respondent on the ground that the classification was due to an error of CHA, who classified the goods in the Bill of Entry under CTH 8414 5120 and that error could have been rectified under Section 154 - Held that - From the records it is abundantly clear that the present case is not a case of clerical mistake. It is a claim of classification under different heading and consequently benefit of a notification. The respondent has not challenged the classification of the goods at any stage nor they have filed any appeal against the classification. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the case is covered by the judgment Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding it as a rectifiable clerical error under Section 154. Therefore, this case is not covered under Section 154 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed any order relating to the three Bills of Entry (out of the total 10 Bills of Entry) covered under Order-in-Original No. 1995/08 dated 16/12/2008 and admittedly the respondent has not challenged that aspect of the order-in-original. There the adjudicating authority s order would prevail to that extent.

Issues involved:
1. Classification of goods under different headings.
2. Eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 21/2002.
3. Rectifiability of clerical error under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Commissioner (Appeals) decision on refund claim rejection.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported fans under different headings. The respondent claimed that the goods should be classified under a specific heading to avail the benefit of a concessional rate of duty as per Notification No. 21/2002. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing precedents and judgments, including one from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the misclassification was a clerical error that could be rectified under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue contended that the appeal decision was not sustainable as the assessment order had not been challenged, and a refund claim does not equate to an appeal proceeding.

2. The respondent argued that the misclassification was indeed a clerical mistake attributable to oversight by the Customs House Agent (CHA) who filed the Bill of Entry. They supported their stance by referencing a Tribunal decision emphasizing the assessing officer's duty to consider applicable notifications. However, they did not challenge the Commissioner (Appeals) decision regarding three specific Bills of Entry. The Tribunal noted that the case did not align with the criteria for rectifiable clerical errors under Section 154, emphasizing that it was a classification dispute rather than a mere clerical mistake.

3. The Tribunal highlighted that the respondent had not challenged the classification of goods or filed any appeals against it. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was cited to emphasize that duty is payable as per the assessment order unless reviewed or appealed. The Tribunal deemed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision unsustainable in law, as it failed to recognize the classification dispute and erroneously categorized it as a clerical error under Section 154. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the Revenue's appeal.

4. Notably, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the issue concerning three specific Bills of Entry covered under a particular order-in-original, as the respondent did not challenge that aspect. Therefore, the adjudicating authority's order prevailed in that regard. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and allowed the appeal in the present case, emphasizing the incorrect classification and the inapplicability of Section 154 for rectification.

← Previous Next →