2014 (4) TMI 18 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Assessment of bill of entry has not been challenged by the appellant - Held that - it is case where the Bill of Entry was assessed but the goods have not been received by the appellant. Therefore, they have filed a refund claim for duty paid for which they have not received any goods. In these circumstances, the reassessment of Bill of Entry is not required in the light of the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. 2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against dismissal of appeal on the ground of unchallenged assessment of bill of entry
- Entitlement for refund claim due to non-receipt of goods after payment of duty

Analysis:
1. Appeal Dismissal on Unchallenged Assessment:
The appellant appealed against the dismissal of their appeal on the basis that the assessment of the bill of entry had not been challenged. The appellant contended that the bill of entry was filed under an Airway bill against a specific invoice, and duty was paid accordingly. However, the goods covered under the invoice were not received by the appellant. Subsequently, the goods arrived, and a new Bill of Entry was filed for clearance, accompanied by duty payment. The appellant argued that since they had paid duty but not received the goods, they were entitled to a refund claim. It was emphasized that the decision in Priya Blue Inds. was not applicable to the circumstances of this case.

2. Entitlement for Refund Claim:
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the bill of entry should be re-assessed as the goods were not received by the appellant. After hearing both sides and considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the case involved a scenario where the Bill of Entry had been assessed, but the goods were not received by the appellant. In such a situation, the appellant filed a refund claim for the duty paid on goods that were not received. The Tribunal referred to the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. and held that in circumstances where duty was paid but goods were not received, reassessment of the Bill of Entry was not necessary. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim and setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, under the judgment delivered by Ashok Jindal, allowed the appeal and granted the appellants the entitlement for a refund claim due to the non-receipt of goods after the payment of duty. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the precedent set by the Aman Medical Products Ltd. case, emphasizing the principle that in situations where duty is paid but goods are not received, reassessment of the Bill of Entry may not be required, and the appellant may be entitled to a refund claim.