TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31930 and assessed to BCD and SAD at merit rate. The appellant noticed that they are eligible for concessional rate of SAD in terms of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.3.2012 but had not claimed the same at the time of assessment. The appellant approached the Assistant Commissioner of Customs seeking reassessment extending the benefit of the above said Notification. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs responded vide letter dated 6.1.2014 stating that the request for reassessment cannot be considered as the original assessment was not set aside in appeal. Subsequent to this letter, the appellant filed a refund claim dated 03.02.2014 before the Ld. Original Authority. After due process of law, the Ld. Original Authority observed that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., until such modification, duty was payable strictly in terms of the existing assessment. C. Thereafter, the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.12,61,379 on 03.02.2014, contending that the exemption under Notification No. 12/2012 (Sl. No. 199(i)) had not been claimed at the time of filing the Bill of Entry due to oversight, resulting in excess payment of duty. The denial of reassessment by the Assistant Commissioner was also challenged. This refund claim culminated in Order-in-Original No. 142/2014 dated 21.02.2014. D. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, seeking reassessment of the Bill of Entry and consequential refund. The appeal was dismissed vide Order-in-Appeal No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also through other statutory provisions. J. Recent decisions, including Velankani Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [FINAL ORDER Nos. 21468 - 21469 of 2025, Dated: 19.09.2025] and Dimension Data India Pvt. Ltd. [2021(371) E.L.T. 192 (Bom.)], clarify that in the self-assessment regime, inadvertent factual errors such as non-claim of an exemption notification can be rectified through statutory mechanisms like Sections 149 and 154. The denial of reassessment and refund solely for want of an appeal disregards these provisions and the mandate to ensure correct levy of duty, particularly where the error is evident from contemporaneous records. In the light of the legal precedents the Ld. Counsel submitted that the duty paid in excess of that pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, though the department did not find the procedure adopted to be as per law. 5. I find that a similar matter had been examine by me earlier in M/s. Valeo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs [2024 (4) TMI 484 - CESTAT CHENNAI / Final Order No. 40393/2023, Dated: 10.04.2024], in the more foundational issue of classification of goods. Brief facts of the case were that the appellant filed various Bills of Entry for clearance of imported goods. Later, claiming the goods were mistakenly misclassified, the appellant sought amendment of the Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to change the classification. The department rejected the request, holding inter alia that reassessment is not permissible under Section 149....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has not taken credit in respect of the inputs and capitals goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the manufacture of mobile phones and during the relevant period, the EDI system did not permit availment of the lower rate of tax as per the Exemption Notification. A Writ of Mandamus was issued by the Hon'ble High Court to the department to amend the subject Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act so as to enable the importer / petitioner to seek refund of excess duty paid under Section 27 of CA'62. 9.2 The Hon'ble High Court of Madras which is the jurisdictional High Court examined a similar matter in Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Limited v. CC [2022 (4) TMI 1374 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. The petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rule of judicial precedence, holds that a decision of the jurisdictional High Court is binding on the subordinate courts, authorities and Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Judicial discipline requires that in matter on which the jurisdictional High Court had already expressed its views the same should be taken as binding on the Tribunals. I respectfully abide by the same." 6. Accordingly, in deference to the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court above and in the peculiar circumstances of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and it is ordered that the letter dated 23.09.2013 be treated as a request for amendment of the Bill of Entry as per section....