Mobile handset importer wins refund appeal after re-assessment orders became final and undisputed

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding refund of differential CVD. The appellant imported mobile handsets through 17 Bills of Entry during March-July 2015. The BOEs were re-assessed on 18.08.2016 and refund was sanctioned by adjudicating authority. The appellate authority wrongly rejected refund on grounds not challenged by department in appeal. Since re-assessment orders attained finality and department never disputed the re-assessment, appellant was legally eligible for refund. The tribunal held that refund cannot be denied on grounds not raised by department during appeal proceedings.

---

---

The primary legal issues considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are twofold: (i) whether the refund claim of the appellant can be denied based on the Supreme Court's ruling in ITC Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, when the subject Bills of Entry (BOEs) had already been reassessed and such reassessment order had attained finality; and (ii) whether the appellate authority can reject a refund claim on a ground that was not raised or challenged by the department in its appeal.

Regarding the first issue, the relevant legal framework centers on the Customs Act, 1962, particularly the provisions relating to assessment, reassessment, and refund of customs duty. Section 27 of the Customs Act governs refund claims, while Section 128 provides the mechanism for appeal against assessment orders. The Supreme Court in ITC Limited clarified that a refund claim under Section 27 cannot be entertained unless the underlying assessment order is challenged and reassessed under Section 128, thereby establishing that reassessment is a prerequisite for sanctioning refunds in self-assessment regimes.

In this case, the appellant imported mobile handsets during the period 26th March 2015 to 9th July 2015 and paid additional customs duty (CVD) at higher rates due to restrictions in the ICEGATE system which prevented them from claiming concessional rates under Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sl. No. 263A). The Supreme Court's decision in SRF Ltd. had established the applicability of this exemption to imports effective March 2015. The appellant filed for refund of the differential duty paid, but the department rejected the claim on the ground that the BOEs were not reassessed, relying on the ITC Limited decision.

The appellant contended that the BOEs were indeed reassessed on 18.08.2016, with approval from the Principal Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, and that this reassessment had attained finality as the department never challenged it in subsequent appeals. The appellant supported its position with the Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 28.05.2018, which explicitly recorded the approval and reassessment of the BOEs and sanctioned the refund. The department's appeals against this order did not dispute the reassessment itself but raised other grounds such as unjust enrichment and applicability of the exemption notification.

The department, however, argued that the original reassessment file was not traceable, and no formal reassessment order was produced. It contended that once goods are cleared for home consumption, they cease to be imported goods, and reassessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act is not permissible. The department also noted the absence of any application by the appellant for amendment or modification of the BOEs under Sections 149 or 154 of the Customs Act, which allow correction or amendment of assessment orders. The department relied on precedents such as Dimension Data India and Sony India Pvt. Ltd., which emphasize that refund claims require either an appeal under Section 128 or amendment under Sections 149/154 before sanctioning refunds.

The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence and found that the OIO dated 28.05.2018 clearly recorded the reassessment of the BOEs and approval of the refund calculation, and that the department did not contest the reassessment in any appeal. The Tribunal rejected the department's submissions based on absence of the original file and inferences drawn therefrom, holding that the reassessment had indeed taken place and had attained finality. The Tribunal relied on the principle that an unchallenged reassessment order becomes final and binding. It further distinguished the Lava International case relied upon by the appellant, noting that in that case the reassessment was effected under Section 149 and remained unchallenged, whereas in the present case, the reassessment was explicitly recorded and approved by competent authorities.

On the second issue, the Tribunal considered whether the appellate authority could reject the refund claim on a ground not raised by the department in its appeal. The impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund solely on the ground that the BOEs were not reassessed, in line with ITC Limited. However, the department's appeal against the OIO-III did not raise this issue; it focused on other grounds. The Tribunal held that it is impermissible for the appellate authority to decide the appeal on a ground not raised by the appellant or respondent in the appeal, as it violates principles of natural justice and fair hearing. The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court decision in Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd., which supports the proposition that an appellate authority cannot reject a claim on a new ground not canvassed in the appeal. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable on this ground as well.

The Tribunal's conclusions are as follows: the reassessment of the BOEs was carried out on 18.08.2016 and has attained finality since the department did not challenge it; therefore, the appellant is legally entitled to the refund of the differential duty paid. Further, the appellate authority erred in rejecting the refund claim on a ground not raised by the department in its appeal. Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund was set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief.

Significant holdings include the Tribunal's reliance on the following reasoning preserved verbatim from the OIO dated 28.05.2018 and the judgment:

"Approval for re-assessment was given by the Ld. Principal Commissioner on 08.08.2016; BOEs re-assessed on 18.08.2016; Calculation provided by the Appellant approved by Ld. Deputy Commissioner; OIO-II dated 28.05.2018 categorically records about aforementioned approval, re-assessment of BOEs done on 18.08.2016 and approval of computation sheet and thus allows refund to the Appellant, without raising any objection."

Further, the Tribunal emphasized:

"Since the reassessment order was never challenged by the department, we hold that the same has attained finality. Accordingly, we hold that the Appellant is legally eligible for the refund consequent upon the reassessment of the demand."

And on the second issue:

"Since the issue that the refund cannot be claimed without challenge to the Bill of Entry was never before the Appellate Authority, we hold that the impugned order, rejecting refund claim on a ground which is not raised by the department is legally not sustainable."

The core principles established include the binding effect of unchallenged reassessment orders, the necessity of reassessment or amendment of BOEs before sanctioning refunds under Section 27, and the prohibition on appellate authorities deciding appeals on grounds not raised by the parties. The Tribunal's final determination was to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and grant the refund claim based on the reassessment's finality and the appellant's entitlement under the exemption notification as clarified by the Supreme Court in SRF Ltd.

---