2017 (9) TMI 755 - AT - Customs

Tribunal affirms refund claims under Customs Act, citing Delhi HC judgment

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow refund claims under Section 27 of the Customs Act, despite the assessment order ... Refund of excess duty paid - case of Revenue is that Since the order of assessment of the bills of entry was not challenged, it has become final and hence, the same cannot be challenged by filing refund claims - Held that: - the bill of entry was assessed without the respondent claiming the benefit of the notification. Accordingly, there was no lis at the time of the original bill of entry - it will be appropriate to follow the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of AMAN MEDICAL PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI [2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that the non-filing of the appeal against the assessed bill of entry does not deprive the appellant to file its claim for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Refund claim rejection, Benefit of notification, Maintainability of refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The appeal was filed by Revenue against the rejection of refund claims by the original authority, which were later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent had failed to claim the benefit of a notification providing a nil rate of duty at the time of filing the original bill of entry for agricultural sprayers. The Revenue contended that since the assessment order was final and not challenged, refund claims could not be filed, citing Supreme Court judgments. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a Delhi High Court judgment in a similar case to allow the refunds.The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court decisions referenced by the Revenue and the Delhi High Court judgment cited by the Commissioner (Appeals). The High Court had held that a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act was maintainable even if the assessed bill of entry was not appealed, as it falls under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 27. The Tribunal noted that the original bill of entry was assessed without the respondent claiming the notification benefit, leading to no lis at that time. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on the High Court precedent.Therefore, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the decision to allow the refunds. The judgment was pronounced on 14.08.2017 by the Tribunal.