2014 (8) TMI 318 - AT - Customs

Rejection of request for reassessment of Bill of Entry - Error in Invoices - Revision in CENVAT Credit - Held that - The fact that the appellant has paid the excess duty is not in dispute as the price of the impugned item was 0.04 CHF which was invoiced wrongly by the supplier as 4.04 CHF and the appellant has also received the excess amount paid to the supplier by way of Credit Note. The purchase order as well as the invoice were available at the time of filing the Bill of entry. In these circumstances, as per the CBEC Manual, amendment in Bill of entry is required to be allowed although goods have been given out of charge. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. Time limit of implementing order of the tribunal - Difference in opinion - Held that - Ld. member Ashok Jindal directed the authority to implement this order within 30 days of its communication - Ld. member P K Jain is of the view that directing the lower authority to implement the order in a particular time frame at the time of issuing order itself is not appropriate. Such a direction of the Tribunal would be affecting the normal working of the Custom House and also put avoidable and uncalled pressure on officers dealing with the subject.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of request for reassessment of Bill of Entry.
2. Excess duty payment due to error in the invoice.
3. Availability of documentary evidence for amendment and reassessment of Bill of Entry.
4. Dispute over allowing the amendment in the Bill of Entry after goods have been given out of charge.
5. Implementation of the order within a specified time frame.

Issue 1: Rejection of request for reassessment of Bill of Entry
The appellant appealed against the impugned order rejecting the request for reassessment of Bill of Entry 3610581 dated 25.05.2011. The appellant imported Textile Machinery parts, and due to an error in the invoice, they paid excess duty amounting to &8377; 1,11,46,682.70. The application for reassessment was denied on the grounds that the goods were no longer under customs charge, and no documentary evidence supported the amendment and reassessment of the Bill of Entry.

Issue 2: Excess duty payment due to error in the invoice
The appellant realized an error in the invoice where the price of a specific part was wrongly mentioned as 4.04 CHF instead of the actual 0.04 CHF. This error led to the appellant paying excess duty. The supplier acknowledged the mistake and issued a credit note for the excess amount paid. The appellant sought amendment based on the actual purchase order showing the correct price of 0.04 CHF, which was available at the time of filing the Bill of Entry.

Issue 3: Availability of documentary evidence for amendment and reassessment of Bill of Entry
The appellant's consultant argued for the amendment citing the CBEC Manual, which allows for amendments in the Bill of Entry upon showing sufficient proof even after the goods have been given out of charge. The availability of the purchase order and invoice during the filing of the Bill of Entry supported the request for amendment.

Issue 4: Dispute over allowing the amendment in the Bill of Entry after goods have been given out of charge
The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed paid excess duty due to the error in the invoice, which was rectified by the supplier through a credit note. As per the CBEC Manual, the Tribunal held that the amendment in the Bill of Entry should be allowed, even after the goods have been given out of charge. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Issue 5: Implementation of the order within a specified time frame
While the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to implement the order within 30 days of its communication, one of the judges expressed reservations regarding imposing such a strict timeline. The judge emphasized the need to respect the procedures followed by organizations involved in processing such orders and cautioned against undue pressure on officers. The judge highlighted the importance of allowing organizations to follow their established protocols without unnecessary interference.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the request for reassessment of the Bill of Entry and the subsequent amendment allowed based on the error in the invoice.