2024 (12) TMI 750 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess infrastructure cess duty paid by the appellant at the time of import under self assessment - rejection of refund on the ground that the assessee did not challenge the assessment order - HELD THAT - The appellant had filed both the bills of entry under self assessment and paid the duty @ 4%. The said assessment had become final. Subsequently, if the appellant had to avail the benefit of the concessional rate of duty @ of 1% under the notification, they were required to get the bills of entry reassessed, and thereafter, make the refund application but the appellant made the refund claim without challenging the self assessment of the bills of entry, which is clearly against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT (LB) . There are no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the refund claim without seeking reassessment of the bill of entry and hence the same is affirmed - The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of excess infrastructure cess duty paid at the time of import under self-assessment.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the rejection of the refund claim for excess infrastructure cess duty paid during import under self-assessment. The refund claim was filed for goods eligible for a concessional rate of infrastructure cess but paid at a higher rate under self-assessment. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim citing a CBEC Circular and the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise versus Flock India. The appeal was further rejected based on the decision in ITC Ltd versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata. The appellant argued that they tried to pay the concessional rate but the portal was not updated. They also approached the Assessment Department for reassessment, but it was not deemed necessary. The Revenue contended that the appellant should have reassessed the Bills of Entry before filing the refund claim.

The Tribunal acknowledged the need for reassessment of the Bills of Entry before claiming a refund, as per the decision in ITC Ltd. The appellant had self-assessed the bills and paid the duty at a higher rate. To claim the concessional rate, reassessment was necessary, which the appellant did not do. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order rejecting the refund claim due to the failure to seek reassessment of the Bills of Entry. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.