2016 (9) TMI 416 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Import of 8 consignments of ferrite magnets - importer did not claim the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012 in the Bill of Entry so filed by them which came to be finally assessed by the proper officer of the Customs, without considering the applicability or otherwise of the said notification - whether in such facts and circumstances, the non-challenge to the Bill of Entry would be considered as a bar for claiming refund - Held that - such a situation has already been considered by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. vs. CC, Delhi 2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT with which we are bound. Therefore, we are of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly followed the Delhi High Court decision and has rightly held in favour of the respondent. We find no justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding refund claim based on exemption notification NO. 12/12-Cus dated 17.3.2012.

Analysis:
The Revenue challenged an order related to a refund claim for imported ferrite magnets. The appellants did not claim the benefit of exemption notification in the Bills of Entry filed, leading to the goods being assessed without the exemption. Subsequently, a refund claim was filed citing the exemption notification. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Flock (India) Pvt Ltd., stating that a refund cannot be entertained directly if the assessment order is not challenged. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the Delhi High Court decision in Aman Medical Products Ltd. and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's decision applies only when there is a dispute between the importer and the Revenue.

The Revenue's appeal was based on the grounds that the assessment order was not challenged, referencing Circular No. 24/2004-Cus and various Supreme Court judgments. The Revenue argued that a refund claim is not maintainable if the assessment order becomes final without challenge. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not contest the availability of the notification to the assessee, focusing solely on the non-challenge to the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on the Aman Medical Products Ltd. case, stating that the non-challenge to the Bill of Entry does not bar the claim for refund.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The Tribunal held that in the absence of a challenge to the Bill of Entry, the non-challenge does not prevent the assessee from claiming a refund based on the exemption notification. The decision was in line with the Delhi High Court ruling and established legal principles.