2018 (6) TMI 596 - AT - Customs

Refund of Customs Duty paid - rejection on the ground that it was filed without challenging the final assessment order - Held that - Reliance placed in the case of MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR CARGO) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (REFUNDS-AIR) 2017 (7) TMI 551 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where The applications were returned on the ground that there was no order on record modifying or reviewing the rate of duty determined via the self-assessment mode. This conclusion of the second respondent, in view of what is stated above, is, clearly, wrong - the impugned order upholding rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the assessment order has not been challenged, cannot sustain and is set aside. The original authority is directed to process the refund claim on merits - rejection of refund do not sustain - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Claim of refund on the basis of MRP under Notification No. 14/2008-CE
- Validity of final assessment order and refund claim
- Interpretation of Customs Act, 1962 provisions post-amendment
- Requirement of speaking order for re-assessment of self-assessed goods
- Rejection of refund claim without challenging assessment order
- Dispute over valuation for CVD purposes
- Application of Section 4A of Central Excise Act for valuation

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants filing 38 Bills of Entry for Lenovo Notebook Computers under Notification No. 14/2008-CE for MRP based assessment. The issue arose when the goods were cleared on transaction value instead of MRP, leading to a rejected refund claim due to not challenging the final assessment order.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that post-amendment of Customs Act, 1962, self-assessed goods require a speaking order for re-assessment, which was not done in this case. Citing relevant judgments, the counsel contended that rejection of refund claim for not challenging the assessment order is improper.

3. On the contrary, the respondent supported the impugned order, highlighting the unresolved dispute over the goods' valuation for CVD purposes. The respondent suggested that the refund claim should be decided post-resolution of the valuation dispute.

4. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found support in the judgments cited by the appellant's counsel. Relying on the High Court's decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claim for failure to challenge the assessment order.

5. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the valuation issue for CVD purposes, citing a precedent where MRP declaration was required for goods sold to an entity not classified as an institutional or industrial consumer. Based on this, the impugned order was set aside, directing the original authority to process the refund claim within three months.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the need for a proper assessment process and consideration of relevant legal provisions for refund claims based on MRP valuation. The decision provided clarity on the valuation aspect and instructed timely processing of the refund claim.