2024 (4) TMI 1018 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Overturns Order, Remands Case for Fresh Decision, Stresses Appeal Rights, Ensures Fair Hearing.

M/s. Sahya Valley Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Nedumbassery, Cochin, Kerala

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the case to the Commissioner(Appeals) for a decision on merits, emphasizing the right to appeal ... Challenging the assessment of Bill of Entry - The assessing authority initially rejected this claim, prompting the appellant to file a revised Bill of Entry without claiming the benefit of these notifications. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal challenging the assessment made by the Customs authorities. - Benefit of concessional rate of customs duty and CVD - appeal rejected by taking the recourse of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is found that after rejection of the appellant’s claim of benefit under the above said notifications as declared in their Bills of Entry, they paid the duty under protest and preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals). Therefore, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have decided the appeals on merits instead of rejecting the same by observing that the appellant has accepted the re-assessment. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV [2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] has held that Revenue as well as appellant can prefer an appeal against the order of the assessment. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the issues on merit, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Since the assessment involved in the appeals is around a decade old, it is directed that the denovo proceeding be completed within three months from the date of communication of this order. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of benefit under customs duty notifications, interpretation of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, justification of rejecting appeals without deciding on merits.Issue 1: Appeal against rejection of benefit under customs duty notificationsThe appellant filed Bill of Entry claiming concessional rate of customs duty and CVD under Notification No.12/2012-Cus. and Notification No.12/2012-CE. The assessing authority rejected the claim, leading the appellant to file a revised Bill of Entry without claiming the benefit of the notifications. The learned Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that once goods are cleared for home consumption, the assessment is final. The appellant's advocate argued that the rejection was wrongful and that the assessment order is appealable as per the judgment in ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kolkata-IV.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962The central question in this case was whether the learned Commissioner(Appeals) was justified in rejecting the appeals without deciding on merits based on Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The section specifies that if an assessment is contrary to the importer's claim, the proper officer must pass a speaking order. In this case, the appellant paid duty under protest and appealed, indicating that the rejection of their claim should have been decided on merits. Citing the judgment in ITC Ltd. case, it was argued that both Revenue and appellant can appeal against an assessment order.Issue 3: Justification of rejecting appeals without deciding on meritsAfter considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) should have decided the appeals on merits instead of rejecting them based on the assumption that the appellant accepted the reassessment. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment, it was emphasized that any person aggrieved by an assessment order, including self-assessment, can appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the issues on merit after providing an opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal directed that the denovo proceeding be completed within three months from the date of communication of the order, keeping all issues open. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.