2018 (7) TMI 102 - AT - Customs

Refund claim of excess customs duty paid - refund claims were rejected on the ground that at the time of filing of Bills of Entry, the appellant did not opt for exemption N/N. 21/2002 - Held that - Admittedly, the appellant did not opt for exemption notification at the time of filing of Bills of Entry but it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to assess the duty properly. If exemption notification grants exemption unconditionally, in that circumstances benefit of notification cannot be denied. It is an admitted fact that appellant has borne the excess duty paid by them, which was not required to be paid by them. In that circumstance, as appellant has paid excess duty at the time of assessment of Bills of Entry, the appellant is entitled to refund claims - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection based on non-opting for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 at the time of filing Bills of Entry.

Analysis:
The appellants filed appeals against the rejection of refund claims for paying excess duty on imported consignments of soda ash dense. The duty was paid at 10% instead of the required 7.5% under Notification No. 21/2002. The refund claims were dismissed as the appellant did not opt for the exemption at the time of filing Bills of Entry. The AR argued that since the appellant did not opt for the exemption initially, the officer cannot grant it later, and self-assessed Bills of Entry do not allow for refund claims.

Upon review, it was found that the sole reason for denying the refund claims was the failure to opt for the exemption during the filing of Bills of Entry. The Assessing Officer's duty is to properly assess the duty, and if an exemption notification provides unconditional relief, it cannot be denied based on non-opting at the time of filing. The nature of the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 was not clear from the records, and this ambiguity cannot be used to reject refund claims. As the appellant had paid excess duty, which was unnecessary, they are entitled to refund. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the refund claims were allowed, acknowledging the appellant's right to reimbursement.

The judgment was delivered on 24-10-2017, granting relief to the appellant by recognizing their entitlement to refund due to the overpayment of duty, despite the initial failure to opt for the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 during the filing of Bills of Entry.