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 metallurgical coke in January-February 2015 but raised Clean Energy Cess chargeability issue after more than one year. Bills of Entry were finally assessed without re-assessment, negating requirement for order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962. CPGRAMS reply dated 12.09.2018 was not a statutory order under Customs Act. Appeal dismissed for lack of merit.

---

---

Issues:
- Maintainability of the appeal
- Time bar for filing the appeal
- Chargeability of Clean Energy Cess on imported goods

Analysis:
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.

---