2010 (8) TMI 499 - AT - Customs

Tribunal remands case for eligibility reconsideration under Notification No. 30/04-C.E.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the case to the Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner for reconsideration of the appellants' eligibility ... Refund claim - The appellants challenged by filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessment made in the nine Bills of Entries on the ground that they were eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 30/04-C.E. dated 9-7-04 as amended - The appellants are claiming that they were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 30/04 and the same was not extended by the assessing authority and therefore, they filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) promptly. Held that: it is appropriate that the matter goes back to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner for considering the plea of the appellants for the benefit of the Notification - Hence, the appeals are disposed Issues:Classification of imported fabrics under various sub-headings, eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 30/04-C.E., appeal against assessment orders, absence of Notification in EDI system, refusal of Commissioner (Appeals) to interfere with assessment orders, claim for benefit of exemption Notification, failure to inform assessing authority of grievance, legal alternatives available to appellants, requirement of speaking order, refund claim process, applicability of Notifications, remand for re-consideration.Analysis:The judgment involves a dispute regarding the classification of imported fabrics under different sub-headings and the eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of Notification No. 30/04-C.E. The appellants filed appeals challenging the assessment orders after the assessing authorities accepted their classification claims and exemption notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) declined to interfere with the assessment orders, stating that the appellants did not inform the assessing authorities of their grievances before appealing. The appellants argued that they were advised by the service center about the absence of the Notification in the EDI system, leading them to file appeals promptly. The Legal Representative for the appellants contended that they were eligible for the Notification's benefit and cited relevant case law to support their claim.The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and reviewed the records. It highlighted that any person aggrieved by a decision under the Customs Act can file an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against 'any decision or order.' The appellants claimed they were eligible for the Notification's benefit, which was not extended by the assessing authority, prompting them to appeal promptly. The Tribunal noted that the appellants could have requested a speaking order or sought a refund of excess duty paid. It referenced a Supreme Court decision stating that refund claims would not be sanctioned without appealing against assessment orders. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling that claims for exemption notifications could be made at any stage. Therefore, it deemed the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision incorrect and ordered a remand to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner for reconsideration of the appellants' plea for Notification benefits.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)' orders, allowed the appeals by way of remand, and directed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner to issue a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to be heard. The Tribunal clarified that it did not express an opinion on the Notification's applicability to the consignments in question, disposing of the appeals accordingly.