2024 (11) TMI 1353 - AT - Customs

Importer's appeal rejected for raising Clean Energy Cess issue after one year time limit under Section 17(5)

CESTAT Kolkata upheld Commissioner (Appeals) decision rejecting appellant's appeal on time bar and maintainability grounds. Appellant imported ... Chargeability of Clean Energy Cess on Metallurgical Coke imported - Rejection of appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of time bar and maintainability - HELD THAT:- We observe that the Bills of Entry were filed in the months of January and February 2015. The appellant has not raised the issue for more than a year. The appellant raised the issue of non issue of order u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, after more than one year from the date of clearance of the goods. A perusal of the Bills of Entry shows that the Bills of entry were finally assessed and there was no re-assessment. Thus, we do not find any merit in the claim of the appellant that there was re-assessment of the Bills of Entry done by the assessing officers and they are required to issue order under section 17(5) of the customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed a grievance letter in the CPGRAMS portal, for which a reply dated 12.09.2018 was given indicating the factual position and why no order was required to be issued under Section 17(5) of the Customs act, in this case. Thus, we observe that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of time bar and maintainability. As the letter dated 18.09.2018, is not an order issued under Customs Act, 1962, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order issued by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting their appeal. Uphold the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal filed by the appellant. Issues:- Maintainability of the appeal- Time bar for filing the appeal- Chargeability of Clean Energy Cess on imported goodsAnalysis:The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appeal as not maintainable and time-barred. The appellant imported metallurgical coke and claimed that Clean Energy Cess was wrongly levied on the goods during re-assessment of Bills of Entry. The appellant argued that they requested finalization of provisional assessments, but the assessing officer informed them that the Bills of Entry were never provisionally assessed. The appellant contended that they wrote to the assessing officer under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, requesting an order, but the officer did not issue one. The appellant claimed that the appeal was not time-barred as there was no specific time limit for requesting the Section 17(5) order. The respondent argued that the Bills of Entry were self-assessed, and no re-assessment was done by the officers. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that the letter in question was not an order under the Customs Act, 1962, and the appeal was time-barred and not maintainable.Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide evidence of filing Bills of Entry with Clean Energy Cess claimed as 'NIL'. The Bills of Entry indicated self-assessment by the appellant, and no re-assessment by the officers was evident. The appellant's claim of provisional assessment was refuted as all Bills of Entry were finally assessed. The Tribunal noted that the appellant raised the issue more than a year after clearance of goods, and no re-assessment was conducted by the officers. The reply to the grievance letter confirmed no re-assessment was done, negating the need for an order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating the appeal was rightly rejected on grounds of time bar and maintainability, as the letter in question did not constitute an order under the Customs Act, 1962.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, rejecting the appellant's appeal. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claims of re-assessment and provisional assessment, as well as the timeliness and maintainability of the appeal. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and affirmed the rejection of the appeal.