9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1236 - AT - CustomsSeeking amendment in the bills of entry - excess duty payment by mistake - Section 154 of Customs Act - HELD THAT - In the present case there is no dispute that excess duty was paid mistakenly on account of certain error and the said mistake was rectifiable under Section 154. Further, the appellant was not at fault at all but it was directed to file refund application at the first instance. Had the Department considered the appellant s request for amendment of its Bill of Entry then, perhaps, the alleged delay, etc. would not have arisen at all. The appellant had correctly and in line with the dictum of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd. (Supra) requested for amendment and it was at the instance of the Department that a refund application was also filed. The appellant s request for amendment/rectification being as per the Hon ble Apex Court s judgment in ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT , is therefore in order - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Error in the invoice leading to excess customs duty payment. 2. Amendment of Bill of Entry. 3. Refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act. 4. Limitation period for refund claims. 5. Re-assessment under Section 17(4) and Section 154 of the Customs Act. 6. Unjust enrichment verification. Detailed Analysis: 1. Error in the Invoice Leading to Excess Customs Duty Payment: The appellants, manufacturers of excisable goods, procured inputs from a German supplier. An invoice error led to an overvaluation (292.68 EUR per kg instead of per 100 kgs), resulting in an excess customs duty payment of ?27,81,701/-. The supplier issued a credit note to correct the error. 2. Amendment of Bill of Entry: The appellants filed a Bill of Entry and paid duty based on the erroneous invoice. Upon discovering the error, they requested an amendment to the Bill of Entry and a refund of the excess duty. The Assistant Commissioner initially declined the amendment, stating that amendments are not permitted post-clearance unless supported by existing documentary evidence at the time of clearance. 3. Refund Claim Under Section 27 of the Customs Act: The appellants filed a refund application under Section 27, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority due to the claim being time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) later ruled that the rejection on limitation grounds was incorrect, remanding the matter to verify unjust enrichment and process the refund. 4. Limitation Period for Refund Claims: The adjudicating authority initially rejected the refund claim as time-barred. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found this rejection incorrect, noting that the refund should be processed under Section 27, considering the amendment under Section 154. 5. Re-assessment Under Section 17(4) and Section 154 of the Customs Act: The Revenue argued that the refund was sanctioned without proper re-assessment under Section 17(4). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the refund, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata IV, which mandates modification of the self-assessment order before entertaining a refund claim. The Tribunal agreed that the issue was covered by the ITC Ltd. judgment, emphasizing that any refund should follow a re-assessment or amendment under Section 154. 6. Unjust Enrichment Verification: The Commissioner (Appeals) directed verification of unjust enrichment before processing the refund. The Tribunal noted that the original refund sanctioning order was in line with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s directions, which had become final and binding. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, directing the Adjudicating Authority to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 154 and process the refund as per the directions in the Dimension Data India Pvt. Ltd. case. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's request for amendment was valid and should have been considered initially, avoiding the delay and subsequent legal proceedings. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for appropriate action in line with the specified judicial directions.
|
