2023 (1) TMI 352 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess duty - refund was rejected on the ground of time bar that the appellant had filed the refund claim after one year from the date of final assessment - HELD THAT - The sanctioning authority has considered the letter F.No S/9 -241 GATT/2012 GVC S/9-261 GATT/2012 GVC dated 22.03.2017 as final assessment order however on perusal of the said letter I find that through the said letter the appellant was directed to approach the concerned assessing authority for finalization of assessment where the provisional assessment was undertaken in their bills of entry. As per the said letter it is not clear when the final assessment order was issued. The learned counsel has also given a sample copy of bills of entry and on the bill of entry also there is no mention of final assessment. There are force in the argument of the Learned counsel that the bond was cancelled on 04.08.2018 therefore, if there is no formal final assessment order was issued then the date of cancellation of bond shall be treated as finalization of assessment, however it is not on record that whether any formal final assessment order was issued. Accordingly, the matter needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the facts about the actual date of finalization of bills of entry and to pass a reasoned order on the refund. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar.
2. Interpretation of final assessment order.
3. Consideration of the date of cancellation of bond as finalization of assessment.

Analysis:
1. The appellant deposited excess duty during provisional assessment and later filed a refund claim under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The refund claim of Rs. 27,41,765/- was rejected as time-barred, filed after one year from final assessment. The Original Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection. The appellant challenged this rejection in the present appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the refund claim was filed within one year from the cancellation of the provisional bond, not from the date of the letter issued by SVB, Mumbai. The letter from SVB was not a final assessment order but directed the appellant to finalize assessment with the assessing authority. The appellate authority noted the absence of a formal final assessment order and considered the cancellation of the bond as the finalization of assessment. The matter was remanded to ascertain the actual date of finalization of assessment for a reasoned decision on the refund claim.

3. The Revenue reiterated the time-barred finding, while the appellant contended that the bond cancellation date should be considered for final assessment. The appellate authority agreed with the appellant's argument, emphasizing the absence of a formal final assessment order. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand to the Adjudicating Authority to determine the factual date of finalization of assessment and make a reasoned decision on the refund claim.

This judgment highlights the importance of correctly determining the final assessment date for refund claims and emphasizes the need for a formal final assessment order for clarity in such matters. The decision underscores the significance of procedural compliance and accurate interpretation of legal provisions in customs matters, ensuring fair treatment for appellants seeking refunds within the statutory timelines.