2012 (5) TMI 411 - AT - Customs

Refund claims - duty which was claimed to have been paid in excess on a Bill of Entry Held that - no material relating to contemporary import prices was disclosed by the original authority. The Orders-in-Assessment/Original merely state that the contemporary import price during the relevant time was verified and it was found that the prices of the goods cleared during the relevant time were at par with the loaded value. The Orders-in-Original do not reveal that the relevant records indicating contemporary import prices were supplied to the assessee, case remanded to the original authority for fresh decision on the refund claims

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims by the original authority.
2. Upholding of the original authority's decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) without a detailed explanation.
3. Challenge to the Commissioner (Appeals) order on the grounds of lack of reasoning.
4. Allegations of the original authority not following principles of natural justice and lack of disclosure of material relating to contemporary import prices.

Analysis:

1. The appeals filed by the assessee were against the rejection of two refund claims by the original authority, totaling Rs. 31,268 and Rs. 31,869, for excess duty paid on Bill of Entry filings in April and May 2001. The original authority based its decision on the loaded value of imported goods being in line with contemporary import prices, leading to the rejection of the refund claims due to the assessment being deemed correct.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority's decision without a detailed explanation, stating that the value enhancement based on contemporary evidence was justified and refusing to interfere with the decision. This lack of reasoning in the order led to a challenge by the appellant on the grounds of the order not being a speaking one, which is essential for justifiability in law.

3. The challenge to the Commissioner (Appeals) order was primarily based on the lack of reasoning provided in the decision. The appellant argued that the one-liner decision without any preceding discussion rendered the order unsustainable in law. The absence of a detailed explanation for upholding the original authority's decision raised concerns regarding the justifiability of the appellate order.

4. Additional grievances raised by the appellant included allegations against the original authority for disregarding a letter seeking adjournment of a hearing and not providing material on contemporary import prices. While the claim of not following principles of natural justice was not substantiated, the lack of disclosure of relevant records on import prices by the original authority was acknowledged as a genuine concern. This led to the decision to remand the case to the original authority for a fresh decision on the refund claims, with directions to provide an opportunity for the party to verify records and be personally heard, ensuring procedural fairness and transparency in the decision-making process.