2016 (6) TMI 305 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim - Enhancement of value - Duty paid under protest - Held that - it is clear that on the second round of litigation, the appellate orders based on which the refund claims were filed, and later rejected, did not give a clear finding regarding enhancement of value though the para dealing with the said enhancement is verbatim reproduction in all the three orders. Somehow the final finding portion are not figuring in the two of the appellate orders. In the absence of such finding specifically against enhancement of value, at this stage the rejection of refund cannot be faulted. Admittedly no appeal was filed against the purportedly faulty orders of Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding enhancement of value of imported goods and imposition of penalties.
2. Refund claims filed by the appellant for differential duty paid on three bills of entry.
3. Rejection of refund claims by the Original Authority based on previous appellate orders.
4. Lack of clear finding on enhancement of value in the appellate orders leading to rejection of refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the enhancement of value of imported Synthetic Knitted Fabric and the imposition of penalties by the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for a reasoned order. Subsequently, the Original Authority confirmed the enhancement of value and imposed penalties, leading to further appeals resulting in three appellate orders by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Following the favourable orders in the appeal proceedings, the appellants filed claims for refund of the differential duty paid on the three bills of entry. The Original Authority allowed refund in one bill of entry but rejected the other two, stating that the relief granted by the Appellate Authority was only with reference to penalties, not the enhancement of value.

3. The appellant, aggrieved by the rejection of refund claims for two bills of entry, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the three orders passed by him on identical facts had resulted in two different outcomes. The first order gave a detailed finding against the enhancement of value and set aside the original order on both value enhancement and penalty. However, the other two orders did not conclusively address the enhancement of value but did set aside the penalties.

4. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides, observed that the appellate orders, based on which the refund claims were filed and subsequently rejected, did not provide a clear finding regarding the enhancement of value. While the paragraph dealing with the enhancement was the same in all three orders, the final findings were missing in two of them. Due to the absence of a specific finding against the enhancement of value, the rejection of the refund claims at that stage could not be faulted. Since no appeal was filed against the allegedly faulty orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal found no merit in the present appeal and rejected it.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, the subsequent refund claims, and the rejection based on the lack of clear findings on the enhancement of value in the appellate orders.