2017 (7) TMI 1024 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the export duty had been paid against shipping bills which were finally assessed but the Appellant had not challenged the same by filing Appeal - whether the appellants are entitled to refund of ₹ 15,26,962/- of the export duty paid on the goods ductile iron spun pipes during the period 23.5.2008 to 05.6.2008 against seven Shipping Bills? - Held that - it is incorrect to say that there was no assessment of the shipping bills against which the appellant had discharged the export duty during the relevant period in accordance with N/N. 66/2008-Cus. However, the appellant had not challenged the said assessments but directly filed refund claim on 04.12.2008. It is settled principle of law that assessed bills of entry/shipping bills could be challenged before the appellate authority; in the event, the assessee was aggrieved by the assessment of ductile iron spun pipes recorded in the said shipping bills; they could have challenged it. In my opinion, the classification of the goods or applicability of export duty to a particular kind of pipes cannot be settled by filing refund claim. Thus, even if the Department assessed the shipping bills, for the ductile iron spun pipes, attracting Notification No.66/2008-Cus, the right course of remedy would have to file appeal against the assessed copy of shipping bills immediately after receipt of the said assessed shipping bills before the Commissioner (Appeals). Non filing of the appeal against the assessment order of the shipping bills, cannot make them eligible for refund. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to refund of export duty paid on ductile iron spun pipes.
- Challenge of assessment of shipping bills for refund claim.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim for erroneous payment of export duty on ductile iron spun pipes. The appellant exported the pipes under protest, disputing the applicability of export duty. The appellant argued that duty was paid under protest and sought a refund based on subsequent amendments to the duty rates. The appellant contended that the rejection of the refund claim due to non-challenge of assessed shipping bills was not valid. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their claim for refund.

The Respondent-Revenue argued that the appellant disputed the duty applicability before export but paid under protest. They contended that subsequent amendments to duty rates were not retrospective. The Respondent-Revenue emphasized that non-challenge of assessed shipping bills does not entitle the appellant to a refund, citing legal judgments to support their position.

The Tribunal analyzed the case and determined the main issue: whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of the export duty paid on ductile iron spun pipes. The Tribunal noted the appellant's initial dispute regarding duty applicability and the subsequent payment under protest. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of challenging assessed bills for refunds and the legal principle that a refund claim cannot substitute an appeal against an assessment order. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court judgment to support the requirement of challenging assessment orders for refund claims.

Based on the analysis, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, citing the legal principle that a refund claim cannot replace the need for challenging assessment orders. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, aligning with the legal precedents and the principle that a refund claim must be supported by challenging the assessment order.