9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 335 - AT - CustomsRefund of Customs Duty - duty paid under protest - some of refund claims were rejected for want of evidence of lodging protest - HELD THAT - There is no evidence on record to show that appellant has lodged any protest for the Bills of Entry for which refund claim has been rejected - Nowhere in the affidavit, it is mentioned on which date, the protest was lodged and before which authority. The affidavit is totally vague and since it cannot be said to be a supportive evidence. The appellant themselves has lodged a protest during the pendency of the appeal which is also taken on record - No such protest was lodged by the appellant before to the said period. Therefore, as it is a fact on record that no evidence is available with regard to protest made by the appellant, therefore, the refund claim has been rightly rejected by the authorities below. The appellant has not challenged the assessment of Bills of Entry by way of appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals). In that circumstance also, the appeal is not maintainable in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT . There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Claim of refund rejection, entitlement for benefit of exemption notifications, lodging protest for refund claims, challenge of assessment of Bills of Entry. Analysis: The appellant, a manufacturer of surgical sutures, imported goods and claimed exemptions under various notifications. The exemption claimed for imports made between September 2003 to August 2005 was denied, leading to a challenge before the Tribunal. Subsequently, during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant made imports between December 2005 to April 2009 without claiming exemptions. After a favorable order from the Tribunal, the appellant filed refund claims for the latter imports, some of which were rejected for lack of evidence of lodging protest. The appellant argued that since the issue of exemption entitlement was pending before the Tribunal, the Bills of Entry should be treated as filed under protest. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of protest for the rejected refund claims, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court to support their argument that duty payment during the appeal period is deemed under protest. However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of that case from the present one, emphasizing the lack of a protest letter before the impugned period for the refund claims. Despite the appellant submitting an affidavit claiming protest, the Tribunal found it vague and unsupported by specific details, leading to the rejection of the refund claims. Additionally, the appellant's failure to challenge the assessment of Bills of Entry before the Commissioner(Appeals) rendered the appeal not maintainable, following a precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order rejecting the refund claims due to the lack of evidence of protest and the failure to challenge the assessment of Bills of Entry. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of providing concrete evidence to support refund claims and following proper appeal procedures as per legal precedents.
|
