2014 (3) TMI 600 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Import of medical instruments and kits from assessee s principal in USA - Mistake in mentioning value of goods on invoice - Refund claim regarding extra duty paid - refund claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce documents in support of their refund claim - Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the clerical mistake creeping into the assessment documents which can be remedied by taking recourse to Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 by way of reassessment - Commissioner remanded matter back - Held that - this is case where originally there was no lis between the Revenue and the importer and there was no decision by the proper officer on the same. Admittedly, it was the case of clerical mistake - Commissioner (Appeals) has properly remanded the matter to the lower authorities for examining the assessee s claim, after scrutiny of the documents, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Following decision of Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi 2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection due to lack of supporting documents.
2. Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case.
3. Challenge to the assessment of bill of entry affecting refund claim.
4. Interpretation of legal precedents regarding the filing of refund claims.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the rejection of a refund claim by the original adjudicating authority due to the importer's failure to produce supporting documents for the claim. The respondent had imported medical instruments and kits from the USA, with an incorrect value mentioned in the sale invoice, leading to an excess payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed a clerical mistake in the assessment documents and suggested remedying it through Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 for reassessment.

2. The main objection raised by the Revenue was regarding the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case. The Tribunal clarified that it indeed had the authority to remand matters. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the original adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of the assessee's claim.

3. Another objection by the Revenue was based on the lack of challenge to the assessment of the bill of entry, which, according to legal precedents like Flock India Pvt. Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries Ltd., could impact the filing of a refund claim. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no prior dispute between the Revenue and the importer, and the issue primarily revolved around a clerical mistake, which could be rectified under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi, to support the importer's right to seek an amendment under Section 154. Given the circumstances and the proper remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) for scrutinizing the documents related to the claim, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's order. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, affirming the decision in favor of the importer.