9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 694 - AT - CustomsRefund claim for differential CVD - Period of limitation - re-assessment/modification of Bills of Entry - refund can be claimed by the respondent on Bills of Entry amended under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 or not - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res integra. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the respondent importer s own case PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 2023 (3) TMI 25 - CESTAT NEW DELHI had considered these two issues in detail and held that It would be seen that the Bombay High Court held that the question of refund would arise only when the assessment order is rectified - the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, committed no illegality in holding that the refund claims were not barred by time. It has also been brought to notice that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal has attained finality, as no appeal has been filed. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether refund can be claimed by the respondent on Bills of Entry amended under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Whether the said refund claims are time-barred. Summary: Issue 1: Claiming Refund on Amended Bills of Entry The Department filed an appeal against the order allowing refund claims by the respondent importer. The respondent had imported mobile phones and paid Additional Customs Duty (CVD) at a higher rate, which was later reassessed based on the Supreme Court's decision in SRF Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs. The respondent sought reassessment and refund of the differential CVD. The refund sanctioning authority allowed the claims, noting that the Bills of Entry were reassessed within one year, and the Chartered Accountant certificates satisfied the requirements of unjust enrichment under Section 28D. The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the reassessment of the Bills of Entry was accepted by the Customs authorities and attained finality as no appeal was filed by the department. The reassessment was done manually in 2018, and the refund applications were filed promptly thereafter. The Counsel contended that the reassessment or amendment under Section 149 was valid, and the refund claims were in accordance with the Customs Act and the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Limited. The learned Authorized Representative for the Department argued that the reassessment was incorrect and should have been an amendment under Section 149. The refunds were sanctioned based on wrong reassessments, and the proper procedure was not followed. The Department contended that the respondent should have appealed against the self-assessment rather than seeking reassessment. The Tribunal noted that the issue was settled in the respondent's favor in a previous case (Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import), New Delhi Vs. Lava International Ltd.). The Tribunal held that refund could be claimed on amended Bills of Entry under Section 149, as the amendment attained finality and was not challenged by the Department. Issue 2: Time-Barred Refund Claims The learned Authorized Representative argued that the refund claims were time-barred as they were filed four years after the original assessment. The Department contended that the limitation period should be counted from the date of payment of duty, not from the date of reassessment. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in ITC and other relevant cases, concluding that the limitation period for refund claims should be counted from the date of reassessment or amendment of the Bills of Entry. The Tribunal held that the refund claims were within the limitation period as they were filed promptly after the reassessment in 2018. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order allowing the refund claims. The Tribunal confirmed that refund could be claimed on amended Bills of Entry under Section 149 and that the refund claims were not time-barred. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finality of the reassessment and the proper application of the limitation period from the date of reassessment.
|
