TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o as to enable Appellant to get the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sr. No. 263A) duty @1% and consequential refund of payment of excess CVD after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of SRF Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2015 (318) ELT 607 (S.C.)] that travelled up to the Commissioner (Appeals) once and remanded back for a speaking order by the Adjudicating Authority that went against the Appellants, whose unsuccessful attempt before the Commissioner (Appeals) to effect such reassessment has brought the dispute to the present forum. 2. During course of hearing of the appeal learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Ramchandra Mattlyil submitted that the reason for rejection of the appeal in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied in accordance with law by taking recourse to the appropriate proceedings, it would not be within the ken of Section 27 to set aside the order of self-assessment and re-assessment of duty for making refund and therefore without any fault on the part of the Appellant, benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE that was supposed to be applied/applicable in Appellant's case even subsequent to the assessment and clearance of goods in terms of final order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, reported in 2015 (318) ELT 607 (S.C.), it was not extended to the Appellant and it could not get the refund due that was accrued against payment of 12% CVD instead of 1% CVD for want of reass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In submitting a synopsis containing list of relevant dates and points of law as well as fact, he argued that both Section 17 and Section 149 of the Customs Act applies to assessment/ reassessment to be made prior to the out of charge order was given for release of goods but Appellant had filed its application for reassessment nearly after four years of assessment of its Bills of Entry and the plea of a glitch in the system of the Department is taken after thought since the letter of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports), New Delhi dated 20.10.2016, on which Appellant is placing heavy reliance, establishes that system was required to be modified t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally but subsequently settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SRF Limited, cited supra and in the mean time there was no movement initiated by Appellant, at the time of filing of Bills of Entry, depositing tax dues, upon clearance of goods or at any time thereafter, apparently for the reason that Appellant was unaware of the benefit available under the said notification, since it was never in the case of the Appellant that indeed it had tried to make payment of CVD @1% but system was not accepting the same, since to that effect not a single piece of evidence is brought on record. More importantly, the relied upon letter sent by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports), New Delhi on 20.10.2016, on which Appellant is harpi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ying applicable customs duty without claiming the benefit of Notification. They did not challenge the assessment of the Bills of Entry, to re-assess them by extending the benefit of above said Notification. They filed the Refund Applications Directly in Refund Section which were rejected on the grounds that the Bills of Entry should have been re-assessed or the importer should have challenged the assessment order in Appeal. 4.1 Not a single step, as followed by Micromax Informatics Ltd. cited supra as noted above, had been followed by the Appellant in the instant case and apparently after getting the knowledge of dismissal of review petition in the case of SRF Limited as well as acknowledgment of the latches in the system of the Responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds neither reassessment nor amendment of the Bills of Entry could be done in the normal circumstances, unless the exceptions noted above, which is admittedly found absent in the Appellant's case, apart from the fact that the sole purpose for reassessment was to enable the Appellant to get refund as a consequence of judgment passed in another case i.e. in SRF Limited, cited supra. Such a refund is hit by the principle laid down in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India, as reported in Supreme Court reports [1996 SUPP. 10 SCR], the relevant para which reads: "(iv) It is not open to any person to make a refund claim on the basis of a decision of a Court or Tribunal rendered in the case of another person. He cannot ....