2015 (12) TMI 169 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - appellants had not challenged the assessment order by way of filing an appeal - Held that - Ratio of the aforesaid judgement of Delhi High Court (which had duly taken note of and distinguished the Supreme Court judgements in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and Priya Blue Industries (2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) on the basis of which the appellants refund claims were rejected by lower authorities) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of these appeals. - matter remanded back - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejected for not challenging assessment order by way of appeal.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal upholding Orders-in-Original rejecting refund claims due to failure to challenge assessment orders through appeals. The basis for rejection was the requirement that refunds are not maintainable unless an order of assessment is reviewed by a higher appellate authority, as per Supreme Court judgments. The appellants claimed refunds as goods were assessed to Basic Custom Duty higher than the eligible rate under a specific notification, which they were unaware of initially. They argued that the assessment did not need to be appealed against for refund, citing a Delhi High Court judgment.

The Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. was pivotal. It clarified that duty paid can be borne by the individual without an order of assessment, especially in cases where duty is paid in ignorance of a notification allowing concessional rates after filing a Bill of Entry. This judgment distinguished cases with an assessment order, where the party did not appeal, from cases without an assessment order under dispute. The Tribunal's reference to previous judgments highlighted the importance of an appealable assessment order for questioning its correctness later through a refund claim.

The Tribunal found the Delhi High Court judgment applicable to the appeals, as it addressed the specific circumstances where no assessment order was under contest, aligning with the appellants' situation. Consequently, the appeals were allowed for remand to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the refund claims based on the Delhi High Court judgment. The payment of refunds to the appellants was to be in compliance with the Customs Act, and the reconsideration process was to be completed within three months from the order's receipt, ensuring the appellants' right to be heard.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the maintainability of refund claims under Section 27 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the distinction between cases with and without appealable assessment orders. The decision to remand the appeals for reconsideration based on the Delhi High Court judgment provided a fair opportunity for the appellants to seek refunds in accordance with the law.