9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 647 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - reassessment of bills of entry - Eligibility for exemption from payment of CVD - classification of goods - polyster yarn is recycled polyster staple fibre - Sl. No. 172A of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 173..2012 as amended by 24/2012-CE dated 8.5.2012 - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT has decided the issue against the assessee. It was held that refund cannot be claimed by the appellant as they have not challenged the assessment even though it is a self-assessment. Since the appellants have not challenged the assessment within the prescribed period and also for the reason that the goods were not available for testing as to whether they are manufactured from plastic scrap or plastic waste, the authorities below have rightly rejected the belated request for reassessment - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under Tariff Item 5503 2000. 2. Eligibility for exemption from payment of CVD under Notification No. 12/2012-CE. 3. Rejection of refund claims due to non-challenge of assessment orders. 4. Request for reassessment and challenge of rejection of refund. 5. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and judgments by the Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The appellants, manufacturers of textile yarns, imported recycled polyester staple fiber for manufacturing polyester yarn. They claimed classification under Tariff Item 5503 2000 and paid duties at the time of import. Subsequently, they realized eligibility for CVD exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE. Three refund claims were filed for the same. 2. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims citing non-challenge of assessment orders in appeals, relying on previous judgments. The appellate authority upheld this decision. The appellants contended that the refund claims were filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, post self-assessment introduction in 2011. 3. An appeal was filed against the rejection of refund on the ground of not seeking reassessment of the Bill of Entry. The appellants then requested reassessment and challenged the rejection order before the Tribunal. The request for reassessment was denied by the department due to unavailability of goods for testing and failure to challenge self-assessment within the prescribed period. 4. The department argued that the benefit of exemption is applicable only if the goods meet specific criteria under Notification No. 24/2012-CE. Since the assessment was not challenged within the stipulated period and goods were not testable for compliance, the reassessment request was rightfully rejected. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment to support the decision that refund cannot be claimed without challenging self-assessment. 5. After hearing both sides and considering the legal interpretations, the Tribunal found the appeals lacking merit. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, ultimately dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants. The decision was based on the non-challenge of self-assessment and failure to meet the criteria for exemption under the relevant notification. This detailed analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decisions made in the case.
|
