9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid Notification is published in the Official Gazette and in the present case the Anti-Dumping duty Notification was published on 02.04.2016. Therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay Anti-Dumping duty on 29.03.2016 when he filed the Bill of Entry and the said duty paid by him is paid under mistake. Rejection of refund on the ground of non challenging the assessment order - HELD THAT:- After the amendment in Section 17 and 27 of the Customs Act 1962 w.e.f. 08.04.2011, there is no need to challenge the self-assessment made by the importer as there is no assessment order. Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. [ 2016 (3) TMI 431 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that after 8th April, 2011, as long as customs duty or interest has been paid or borne by a person, a claim for refund made by such person u/s 27(1) of the Act as it now stands, will have to be entertained and an order passed thereon by the authority concerned even where an order of assessment may not have reviewed or modified in appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order of the rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner on the ground of maintainability was, for the aforementioned reasons, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund on the ground that the date of Notification appearing in the Gazette is 29.03.2016 and since the appellant has neither challenged the original assessment in the Bill of Entry nor had paid the duty under protest hence not eligible for refund in terms of Circular No. 24/2004 Cus. dated 18.03.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Cochin who vide the impugned order has upheld the Order-in-Original on identical lines. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that there are two issues to be decided in the present appeal viz. the effective date of Notification and secondly whether refund can be claimed without challenging the assessment in cases of self-assessment. As far as first issue is concerned he submitted that as per Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 the date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. For this submission he relied upon the following decisions: a. Zenith Computers Vs. CC, Goa 2017 (358) E.L.T. 1125 (Tri.-Mum.) b. Liebherr India Vs. Com. Of Cus. Kolkata 2017 (358) E.L.T. 656 (Tri.-Kolk.) c. CC (NS-III) JNCH Vs. Physical Research Laboratory 2017 (357) E.L.T. 475 (Tri.-Mum.) d. Micromax Informatics Ltd. Vs. UOI 2016 (335) E.L.T. 446 (Del.) e. Alagendran Exports Vs. Com. Of Cus. Chennai 2014 (313) E.L.T. 72 (Tri.-Chennai) f. Akzo Nobel Coating India Vs. CC, Chennai 2014 (312) E.L.T. 91 (Tri.-Chennai) g. INA Bearings Vs. Com. Of Cus. Nhava Sheva 2014 (311) E.L.T. 788 (Tri.-Mum.) h. Ruchi Soya Industries Vs. CC, Mumbai 2013 (290) E.L.T. 105 (Tri.-Mum.) i. Amal Medical Products Vs. Com. Of Cus. Del. 2010 (250) E.L.T. 30 (Del.) j. C. Cex Vs. Crest Chemicals 2009 (244) E.L.T. 361 (Tri.-Mum.) 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non challenging the assessment order, I find that after the amendment in Section 17 and 27 of the Customs Act 1962 w.e.f. 08.04.2011, there is no need to challenge the self-assessment made by the importer as there is no assessment order. Self-assessment is made after the amendment and importer cannot challenge his own assessment. This issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. Vs. Union of India wherein the Hon ble High Court of Delhi has considered the amendment made in Section 27 and also distinguished the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. in Paras 13, 14 and 15 has held as under: 13. As far as the present case is concerned, there was indeed no assessment order as such passed by the customs authorities. Although under Section 2(ii) of the Act, the word assessment includes a self-assessment, the clearance of the goods upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
