9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 28 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - finality of assessment - Held that - Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd 2016 (3) TMI 431 - DELHI HIGH COURT has dealt with similar issue which is present in the case in hand, where it was held that there was indeed no assessment order as such passed by the customs authorities. Although under Section 2(ii) of the Act, the word assessment includes a self-assessment, the clearance of the goods upon filing of the B/E and payment of duty is not per se an assessment order in the context of Section 27(1)(i) as it stood prior to 8th April 2011, particularly if such duty has not been paid under protest - Even the CBEC circular presented by DR (No. 17/2011-Customs, dated 08.04.2011) may not carry Revenue s case any further as the said circular explains the factual position as to assessment prior to 4/2011 and the law on this has already been settled by Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Refund claim of excess duty paid on imported consignment under notification No. 12/2015 - Challenge to assessment under Customs Act, 1962 - Interpretation of Section 27 post 08.04.2011 amendments - Applicability of judgments by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court - Tribunal's decision in similar cases. Analysis: 1. The appeal concerned seeking a refund of excess duty paid on imported polished marbles under notification No. 12/2015. The appellant filed for refund after the assessment of imports was finalized, leading to the dismissal of the claim by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs and the first appellate authority. 2. The main contention revolved around the interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 post the amendments made on 08.04.2011. The appellant relied on the judgment in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, emphasizing the right to claim a refund without challenging the assessment if duty was borne by the person. 3. The legal debate centered on whether an assessment order needed to be challenged through an appeal as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department argued that assessment, even in the case of bills of entries, required a challenge as per Supreme Court judgments like Escorts Limited. The Tribunal noted the distinction made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the judgments cited by both parties, emphasizing the importance of the High Court's decision in Micromax Informatics Ltd. in interpreting Section 27 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the law settled by the High Court was directly applicable to the case at hand, despite attempts to distinguish the judgment by referring to a Tribunal decision in the case of CEAT Limited. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal based on the settled law by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Tribunal highlighted that the amendments to Section 27 post 08.04.2011 allowed for refund claims without the necessity of challenging assessment orders, as clarified by the High Court's interpretation in Micromax Informatics Ltd. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD showcases the thorough consideration of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the final decision based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents set by higher courts.
|
