2012 (5) TMI 303 - AT - Customs

Refund - amendment of bill of entry in terms of Section 17 or Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - After clearance they found that the goods were eligible for concessional rate of duty under notification No.25/98-Cus and 69/04. Accordingly, they filed refund claim for the customs duty paid under the aforesaid bill of entry - contention of the Revenue is that the respondent has at no stage challenged the assessment order, therefore, the refund claim was rightly rejected by the lower adjudicating authority Held that - in the case of Priya Blue Industries (2004 - TMI - 47045 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Customs), proper course for claiming the benefit of the notification was by way of filing appeal against the assessment order, Commissioner (Appeals) s order is set aside and Revenue s appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim eligibility based on notification No.25/98-Cus and 69/04
- Maintainability of refund claim without challenging assessment order
- Interpretation of Sections 17 and 149 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Application of relevant case laws in the context of the present case

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim eligibility based on notification No.25/98-Cus and 69/04
The respondent filed a refund claim for customs duty paid under a bill of entry, claiming eligibility for concessional duty rates under notification No.25/98-Cus and 69/04 after the goods were cleared. The lower adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing the need to modify the assessment order before filing a refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the respondent to approach the proper officer for amendment of the bill of entry under Sections 17 or 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Maintainability of refund claim without challenging assessment order
The Revenue contended that since the respondent did not challenge the assessment order, the refund claim was rightly rejected. The question before the Commissioner (Appeals) was whether a refund claim can be maintained when the assessment was not challenged and had attained finality. The Revenue relied on a Tribunal decision to support their argument.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Sections 17 and 149 of the Customs Act, 1962
The respondent argued that a genuine mistake led to the refund claim and that the bill of entry should be open to reassessment or amendment under Sections 17 and 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. They cited relevant case laws to support their contention, emphasizing the possibility of correcting mistakes by the customs officer under Section 154 of the Act.

Issue 4: Application of relevant case laws in the context of the present case
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Sections 17 and 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. It clarified that Section 17(5) applies only when the assessment is contrary to the importer's claim, which was not the case here. Additionally, Section 149 prohibits amending a bill of entry after goods are cleared for home consumption, which was the situation in this case. The Tribunal distinguished the cited case laws, stating they were not directly applicable due to differences in the circumstances.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, allowing the Revenue's appeal based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the application of case laws specific to the situation at hand.