2013 (3) TMI 167 - AT - Customs

Refund claim denied as goods were cleared by paying higher quantum of duty - assessee submitted to be due to calculation errors - Held that - The conduct of lower authorities is not appreciable as on one hand they are sitting over the applications filed by the applicant for correction of Bill of Entry and on the other hand, they are rejecting the refund claim on the sole ground that reassessed Bill of Entries have not been produced by them. Reassessment was required to be done by the proper officer and is admittedly not in the hands of assessee. Revenue cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its own lapses. If the original adjudicating authority was of the view that reassessed Bill of Entry is required for grant of refund claim, the same was required to be decided first and then the order was required to be passed on the refund application. Thus finding favour with the appellants contention that inasmuch as there was no lis involved on any legal point, between the appellant and the Revenue, the refund claim are required to be adjudicated independently. See Aman Medical Products Ltd. 2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT , Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & Priya Blue Industries 2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein held that where there is no dispute about any legal issue refund claims cannot be rejected on the sole ground that assessments were not put to challenge in appeal. Also see Central Excise, New Delhi v. Prima Telecom Ltd. 2011 (1) TMI 332 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI wherein held that duty paid on higher value in the invoice as compared to the rate mentioned in the purchase order and foreign supplier apologised for the said mistake, the same has to be held as clerical mistake and in the absence of any lis between the appellant and the importer, for the challenge to assessment of import, refund claim has to be sanctioned. In view of the foregoing discussion the appellants are entitled to the refund claim of duty paid in excess - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for excess duty paid due to invoicing error, rejection of refund claim by lower authorities, non-production of reassessed Bill of Entry, delay in disposal of applications under Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, requirement of reassessed Bill of Entry for refund claim, legal precedent regarding refund claims without a legal dispute.

Analysis:
The appellant imported peizo crystal and inadvertently cleared the goods by paying duty based on the higher invoice value of 0.75 USD instead of the correct value of 0.075 USD per piece. A refund claim was filed seeking the excess duty refund of Rs. 11,28,590 paid due to the invoicing error. The appellant submitted various documents supporting the refund claim, including amended invoices, credit notes, and correspondence with the supplier. Additionally, applications were made under Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act for correction and amendment of the Bill of Entry.

The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim citing non-submission of requisite documents and the absence of appeals against the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal due to the non-production of the reassessed Bill of Entry. However, the delay in processing the applications under Sections 149 and 154 was noted, with no orders passed by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for rejecting the refund claim solely on the grounds of non-production of reassessed Bill of Entry while not processing the applications for correction. It was highlighted that reassessment was the responsibility of the proper officer, and the appellant should not be penalized for the lapses of the Revenue. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument that refund claims should be adjudicated independently when there is no legal dispute between the parties.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that they were entitled to the refund claim as the duty was paid in excess due to a clerical mistake. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verification of the refund claim documents and to pass appropriate orders within two months. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.