2010 (12) TMI 1026 - AT - Customs

Appellate tribunal upholds Commissioner (Appeals) decision on Customs Act refund claim

The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It emphasized that the situation fell within the ... Amendment of documents - Refund claim was rejected on the ground that the assessees have not challenged the assessment - The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that the case falls under ambit of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for amendment of documents and, therefore, there was no requirement to challenge the assessment before claiming the refund - Held that:- Proper officer/assessing officer who assessed the duty was competent under Section 149 to permit the amendment in the Bill of Entry, and refund as result of amendment is permissible. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has safeguarded the interest of the revenue by directing grant of refund only after the jurisdictional Central Excise authority confirm the quantity actually received by the assessees, no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is accordingly upheld,appeal filed by the Revenue rejected. Issues:1. Refund claim for duty paid on missing units in a consignment.2. Interpretation of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Requirement of challenging assessment before claiming refund.Analysis:1. The case involved the assessees filing a Bill of Entry for clearance of 16 units of Bus Air conditioners, paying duty on all 16 units, but only 10 units arrived initially. Subsequently, the remaining 6 units were sent in a second shipment, and duty was paid on all 10 units in the second Bill of Entry. The assessees then sought a refund for the duty paid on the 6 missing units from the first consignment. The claim was rejected for not challenging the assessment initially.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessees, citing Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the amendment of documents. The judgment highlighted that the amendment was necessary as only 10 out of 16 units arrived in the first consignment. The judgment referenced a case from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, emphasizing that the assessing officer can permit such amendments under Section 149, leading to a refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) also ensured the revenue's interest by directing the refund only after confirmation of the received quantity by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority.3. The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It emphasized that the situation fell within the purview of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and there was no requirement to challenge the assessment before claiming the refund. The judgment concluded that the impugned order was valid and no interference was warranted, ultimately upholding the assessees' claim for the refund of duty paid on the missing units.