2004 (11) TMI 378 - AT - Customs

Customs duty refund appeal denied due to failure to challenge assessment order. Duty payable until challenged.

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 223 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Refund of Customs duty claimed by M/s. Airports Authority of India.Analysis:The appeal pertains to the refund of Customs duty claimed by M/s. Airports Authority of India concerning the importation of 4 Aerobridges for airport modernization in April 2002. The Appellants cleared the goods without availing the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002, which provided partial exemption subject to specific conditions. The Appellants later fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the Notification after becoming aware of it on 17-6-2002. The Appellants argued that the requirement for an 'Essentiality Certificate' from a competent authority at the time of clearance was procedural, citing relevant case laws emphasizing substantial compliance with such conditions. However, the Respondent contended that the benefit of the Notification was not claimed during the assessment and clearance of goods, and the assessment order had not been challenged, making the refund claim invalid as per established legal principles.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. It was noted that the assessment order made under Section 47 of the Customs Act is appealable, and as the Appellants did not challenge the assessment order, the claim for refund of duty was deemed not maintainable. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Blue Industries Ltd., emphasizing that as long as the assessment order stands, duty is payable as per that order, and a refund claim does not equate to an appeal proceeding. Therefore, the Appellants' failure to challenge the assessment order rendered their refund claim invalid.Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected the Appellants' argument that the production of certificates as required by the Notification for exemption was a mere procedural formality. The Notification specified clear conditions for availing the exemption, including the necessity of producing specific certificates at the time of importation and clearance. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Eagle Flask Industries, the Tribunal emphasized the strict compliance required for availing benefits under an exemption Notification. As the Appellants failed to produce the required certificates at the relevant times, their refund claim was deemed not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal for the refund of Customs duty was rejected by the Tribunal.