2023 (12) TMI 1180 - AT - Customs

Nature of transaction - classification of goods or refund of excess maount - Liability to pay court fees on all the 4191 appeals in terms of section 129A (6) of the Customs Act, 1962 - aggrieved by reassessment, the appellant filed 4191 appeals before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who confirmed the assessments in respect of the said bills of entry. Whether the present appeal relates to the classification of the goods in question or is a simple case of refund of the excess amount? - HELD THAT - On perusing, the statement of facts in the appeal memorandum, it is found from paragraph 4 that the order of assessment on the bill of entry were challenged in an appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) challenging the classification concluded by the respondent - Further, in the memo of appeal, the appellant explained the manufacturing process and the use or purpose of the back covers, front cover and the middle cover. Had it been a simple case of refund, there was no scope for urging these facts - Considering the statement of facts as well as the grounds of appeal, the only logical conclusion is that the challenge in the present appeals relates to the issue of classification only and there is not a whisper of the refund claim. The present appeals have not arisen out of the rejection of any refund claim applications. In fact as appears, no such application for refund has been filed by the appellant. Liability to pay Court fees - HELD THAT - The provisions of section 129A (6) makes it mandatory for the appellant to deposit the court fees where the demand has been disputed or challenged arising out of assessment or reassessment. The only exception as per the Proviso is where under subsection (2) the Committee of Commissioners decides to file an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or a memorandum of cross objections as provided in subsection (4) is filed. Needless to mention that section 129A (7) even where an application for rectification of mistake (ROM) and restoration of an appeal (ROA) is filed the party has to deposit Rs 500/- as court fees and the only exception is where an application has been filed by or on behalf of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs no such fee shall be payable. Reliance placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of E-BIZ. COM PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA 2008 (9) TMI 55 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where the controversy related to the provisions of Section 86(6) of the Finance Act, 1994 which are pari-materia to the provisions of section 129A (6) of the Act and hence it squarely applies to the present case. Once the duty is paid under protest and the party challenges the same by filing an appeal, it necessarily implies that demand of duty is disputed and consequently the case would fall under section 129A (6) of the Act and the party would be liable to pay the court fees on such appeal being filed. The reasoning adopted by the appellant that it is not a case of demand of duty is basically frivolous as had it not been so there was no scope to file the present appeals challenging the impugned order. The objection raised by the Registry of the deficit court fees in filing the present appeals is justified. The appellant is, accordingly directed to deposit the requisite court fees in terms of section 129A (6) of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay court fees on all 4191 appeals in terms of Section 129A (6) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the present appeal pertains to the classification of goods or is a case of refund of excess duty deposited by the appellant.

Summary:

Issue 1: Liability to Pay Court Fees Under Section 129A (6)
The Tribunal examined whether the appellant is required to pay court fees on the 4191 appeals under Section 129A (6) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that Section 129A (6) is applicable only where "duty and interest is demanded" and since there was no demand raised by the customs department, it is a case of refund of excess duty deposited. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions, asserting that no fees are envisaged for refund claims. Conversely, the revenue contended that any appeal where the demand has been disputed requires payment of court fees, and the appellant's case involved a demand of differential duty due to reassessment, thus attracting the provisions of Section 129A (6).

Issue 2: Nature of the Appeal - Classification vs. Refund
The Tribunal needed to determine whether the appeal was related to the classification of goods or a simple refund case. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had categorically stated in Form CA-3 that the issue pertains to the classification of battery covers and the consequent demand of differential duty. The Tribunal observed that the appeal memorandum and grounds of appeal primarily challenged the classification concluded by the respondent and not a refund claim. The Tribunal concluded that the challenge in the present appeals relates to the issue of classification and the consequent demand of duty, not a refund claim.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 129A (6) make it mandatory for the appellant to deposit court fees where the demand has been disputed or challenged arising out of assessment or reassessment. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue's submission that the appellant's payment of enhanced duty under protest implies a disputed demand, thus making the appellant liable to pay court fees. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the requisite court fees within two weeks from the date of the order.