9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment against the said Bills of Entry; that the question of refund of excess duty does not therefore arise in view of Supreme Court's decision in Priya Blue Industries, In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 4.2.2016 upheld the rejection in respect of Bill of Entry dated 31.5.2013; however, he set aside the rejection of refund claim in respect of bill of Entry dated 3.6.2013 on the ground that assessment was not challenged and directed the original authority to examine the claim in consultation with the assessment group and dispose of in accordance with statutory provisions. Against the rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of Bill of Entry dated 31.5.2013, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, ld. counsel Shri Nikhil Gupta submits that as per section 2(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 'assessment' included 'self-assessment' also. Ld. Counsel takes us to Section 17 of the Act to point out that in cases of where Bill of Entry has been filed on the basis of self-assessment, in case any reassessment is done by the proper officer contrary to the self-assessment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se can be distinguished in the facts of the present case. We also note that vide the Finance Act, 2011, with effect from 8.4.2011, section 27 was also amended inter alia to bring it with those provisions with the amended provisions concerning self-assessment of Bill of Entry. 5.2 We also note that the facts of the present appeals are very much pari materia with the case laws relied upon by the ld. counsel and will apply on all fours to the facts of the present case. 5.3 In the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. 2016 (335) ELT 446 (Del.), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, relying upon its earlier judgment in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. - 2010 (250) ELT 30 (Del.), reiterated that there is no necessity to challenge an assessment order and that the adjudicating authority is in error to reject the refund claim on the ground that self-assessment was not challenged, The relevant portion of the order are as under:- "8. In Aman Medical Products Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was considering an instance of an importer having filed B/Es, paid customs duty and thereafter claimed refund under Section 27 of the Act. The question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, before the expiry of one year, from the date of payment of such duty or interest : Provided that where an application for refund has been made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, such application shall be deemed to have been made under sub-section (1), as it stood before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) : Provided further that the limitation of one year shall not apply where any duty or interest has been paid under protest: Provided also that where the amount of refund claimed is less than rupees one hundred, the same shall not be refunded. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, "the date of payment of duty or interest" in relation to a person, other than the importer, shall be construed as "the date of purchase of goods" by such person. (1A) .... (1B) .... (2) If, on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty and interest, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of one year shall not apply in such event. In other words, whether or not the duty is paid under protest once an application for refund is made in the requisite manner and form as prescribed, it is incumbent on the authority to deal with such an application. Where there is an assessment order, the authority will take it into account in deciding the application for refund If such assessment order has been reviewed or modified in appeal such further order will obviously be taken into account. In other words, under Section 27 of the Act, as it now stands, it is not open to an authority to refuse to consider the application for refund only because no appeal has been filed against the assessment order, if there is one." 5.4 The very same ratio has been rendered by the jurisdictional High Court in Micromax Informatics Ltd. vide order dated 18.4.2017 in W.P. No. 3486 of 2016. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. case cited supra. The relevant portion of the order is as follow:- "19.8. A perusal of the same would show that, once, an application for refund is filed, it is incumbent on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
