2016 (12) TMI 265 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - NPK water soluble fertilizers - goods were exempted from whole of duty by Notification No. 4/2006 CE - whether denial of refund claim on the ground that the refund cannot be claimed without challenging the assessment, justified? - Held that - the Hon ble High Court in the case of Yu Televentures Private Limited., Vs UOI 2016 (8) TMI 184 - DELHI HIGH COURT observed that merely because department has filed review petition against Apex Court s order it is no ground for not following the decision rendered by the Hon ble Court - rejection of refund claim not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Department.

Summary

Issues:
Department's challenge to the order remanding the matter to the original authority for reconsideration of a refund claim without challenging the assessment.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by the department contested the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter to the original authority for re-examining a refund claim made by M/s Indian Potash Ltd. The dispute arose from the payment of Additional Customs Duty on imported NPK water soluble fertilizers, which were later found to be exempted from duty by Notification No. 4/2006 CE. The Assistant Commissioner had rejected the refund claim, stating that it couldn't be entertained without challenging the assessment. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to Circular No. 24/2004-Cus and relevant case laws to justify the need for reassessment before considering a refund claim. The Commissioner emphasized that even a reassessment through a refund claim would nullify the earlier assessment, requiring the original authority to re-examine the refund request in accordance with the law.

The department's argument was based on the premise that a refund claim cannot be made without challenging the assessment. However, a significant judgment in Micromax Information Limited Vs UOI highlighted a crucial change in the law, allowing individuals to claim a refund of duty or interest without the condition of challenging the assessment order. The judgment clarified that once an application for refund is made, the authority must determine the refundability of the claimed duty or interest. The court emphasized that under Section 27 of the Act, the authority cannot refuse to consider a refund application solely because no appeal has been filed against the assessment order, if there is one. This decision underscored the obligation of the authority to address refund claims irrespective of the assessment status.

Additionally, referencing the case of Yu Televentures Private Limited Vs UOI, the court reiterated that the department's review petition against an Apex Court order does not justify non-compliance with the court's decision. Consistent with the legal principles established in the discussed judgments, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the department's appeal. The judgment emphasized the necessity of entertaining refund claims and passing orders on them, even in the absence of a formal assessment order or a challenge to the assessment. The decision highlighted the importance of following legal precedents and ensuring the consideration of refund claims in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision aligned with the legal framework outlined in the relevant judgments, emphasizing the obligation of authorities to address refund claims irrespective of the assessment status. The judgment underscored the significance of following established legal principles and ensuring the proper examination of refund requests in compliance with the law, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the department's appeal.