2023 (12) TMI 795 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - TMR Mixer Wagon for KFL Densified Fodder Plant - to be classified under Chapter 8436 99 00 or under CTH 8716 20 00? - appellant had accepted the assessment order without Any dissent in writing it had attained finality in terms of section 17 of CA - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra as the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT has observed as that There is a specific provision made in Section 17 to pass a reasoned/speaking order in the situation in case on verification, self-assessment is not found to be satisfactory, an order of re-assessment has to be passed under Section 17(4). In the present case, the assessment is made against the declaration made by the appellant and inspite of recording the protest made by the appellants against such assessment, no speaking order was issued. As observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, even if there is no lis, speaking order is mandatory once the assessment was challenged under protest. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue on merits - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of imported goods for exemption of customs duty, acceptance of assessment order without dissent in writing, appeal against assessment order.

Classification of imported goods:
The Appellant, a government undertaking, imported TMR Mixer Wagon for a Densified Fodder Plant declaring the goods under Chapter 8436 99 00. The Adjudicating authority, however, classified the goods under CTH 8716 20 00 and assessed them accordingly. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the grounds that the assessment order had been accepted without any dissent in writing, attaining finality as per section 17, and therefore, no appeal could be made against it.

Acceptance of assessment order without dissent:
The Appellant argued that the goods imported were part of Animal Feed Mills and a true declaration had been made. Despite clearing the goods as per the assessment, the Appellant had intimated the respondent about the urgency of the goods and registered a protest before the respondent. The Appellant contended that the classification was made against their declaration, and it was for the Revenue to show that the Appellant had accepted the classification. The Appellant cited relevant tribunal decisions to support their argument.

Appeal against assessment order:
The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court case where it was observed that any person aggrieved by an assessment order, including self-assessment, could appeal against it. In the present case, the assessment was made against the Appellant's declaration, and despite a protest, no speaking order was issued. The Tribunal noted that a speaking order is mandatory when an assessment is challenged under protest. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue on merits within three months, granting the Appellant an opportunity for a hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.