2017 (11) TMI 1450 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess duty paid - SAFTA N/N. 10/2008-Customs dated 15.01.2008 - principles of natural justice - Held that - the customs authorities have taken the application on record but did not decide the same by passing any speaking order - the AC passed the OIO rejecting the refund claim summarily without an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and similarly the Commissioner (Appeal) has also not considered any of the submissions of the appellant in the impugned order - case remanded back to the original authority with a direction to first decide the application of the appellant for reassessment of the BoE and thereafter decide the refund application after following the principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim due to non-availing of concessional rate of duty under SAFTA Notification, non-speaking order passed without following principles of natural justice, lack of opportunity for personal hearing, need for reassessment-cum-refund of duty application, sustainability of impugned order in law.

Analysis:

1. Non-availing of Concessional Rate of Duty under SAFTA Notification:
The appellant imported goods under a Bill of Entry without claiming the benefit of SAFTA Notification No.10/2008-Customs, resulting in excess payment of duty. The appellant filed a reassessment-cum-refund application due to the error committed by the Customs House Agent. The impugned order summarily rejected the refund claim without considering the eligibility of the concessional rate of duty on the imported goods. The Tribunal found this rejection unsustainable in law and remanded the case to the original authority for a reasoned decision on the reassessment and refund claim.

2. Non-Speaking Order and Lack of Principles of Natural Justice:
The impugned order, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, was deemed non-speaking as it did not provide reasons for rejecting the request for reassessment and refund of excess duty. Moreover, the order was passed without affording the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing, as required under the customs act. The Tribunal held that the impugned order lacked legal sustainability and set it aside, directing the original authority to follow the principles of natural justice and issue a reasoned order after considering all submissions and documentary evidence.

3. Remand for Reassessment-Cum-Refund Application:
The Tribunal observed that the appellant had correctly identified the excess duty paid and filed a reassessment-cum-refund application, which was not decided by the customs authorities. The Assistant Commissioner's summary rejection of the refund claim without a hearing was considered unjust. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, decided to remand the case back to the original authority for a fresh decision on the application for reassessment and refund claim. The original authority was directed to pass a de novo order within three months, allowing the appellant to present all documentary evidence for consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision following the principles of natural justice and the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness, eligibility of concessional rates, and the right to a personal hearing in matters of reassessment and refund claims under the customs act.