Tribunal Upholds Refund Claim, Cites Illegal Rejection by Authority; Orders Reassessment Per Tribunal Directions.

The Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s. Rajhans Enterprises

The Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s. Rajhans Enterprises - TMI Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of a refund claim by the adjudication authority, the subsequent appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) leading to rejection, and the final appeal before the Tribunal regarding the eligibility for a concessional rate of basic custom duty.

Rejection of Refund Claim:
The respondent had imported polymers and later applied for a refund on the grounds of failing to claim a benefit of a notification. The refund claim was initially rejected by the adjudication authority citing non-challenge of the assessed bill of entry and the absence of duty payment under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal stating that the onus to avail the exemption notification lies with the importer. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the original authority for reassessment and refund application consideration.

De Novo Adjudication:
Upon the Tribunal's direction, the matter was taken up for de novo adjudication. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund application, asserting that the self-assessed bill of entry is an order of assessment and appealable. The Commissioner Appeals, however, allowed the appeal, criticizing the adjudicating authority for not following the Tribunal's direction for reassessment. The revenue filed an appeal against this decision.

Arguments and Decision:
The revenue argued that the importer should have proven the origin of goods from Republic of Singapore to claim the benefit of the notification. The respondent's counsel highlighted the Tribunal's specific direction for reassessment and the Adjudication Authority's failure to follow it. The Tribunal found the revenue's appeal lacking merit, emphasizing that the authority's rejection based on the non-challenge of the initial assessment was illegal. The Tribunal stated that in the absence of a challenge to the final order, the authority must consider the request for reassessment on merit. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.