TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordingly, filed a refund claim due to short shipment under the provision of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The customs issued deficiency letter dated 22.03.2022 requesting the appellant to provide necessary documents to process the refund claim. The appellant, thereafter, sort for reassessment/amendment which was rejected by the authorities concerned vide order dated 17.06.2022. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who in the impugned order referring to Section 17(4) and 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Board Circular No. 55/2020-Cus. dated 17.12.2020 held that there was no provision for reassessment in the present set of facts; accordingly, rejected the request of the appellant for reassessment. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us. 3. The Learned Counsel submitted that on receipt of import goods, they got to know that the goods were short-shipped by the supplier and immediately, sort for reassessment. It is submitted that a letter dated 12.05.2021 was issued for reassessment providing all the relevant documents which were available at the time of clearance of goods; however, both author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the Bill of Entry No. 2334134 dated 08.03.2019 wherein the description of the goods were mentioned as 'Assy Electromechanical 30 numbers and the goods were assessed to duty at Rs.54,15,162/- as noted by the Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order. The invoice No.371708 dated 08.07.2018 placed on record by the appellant mentioned the quantity as 30 quantity and the packing list also mentioned quantity shipped as 30, based on which, goods were self-assessed by the appellant and assessed customs duty was discharged. Thereafter, the appellant filed a refund claim and requested for reassessment which was rejected by the original authority vide order dated 17.06.2022 on the ground that the Bill of Entry was not challenged. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the original authority was upheld on two grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the impugned Bill of Entry was assessed and out-of-charge was given on 08.03.2019 and if the appellant was aggrieved against the assessment, they should have filed an appeal on or before 07.06.2019; while the present appeal if filed on 06.09.2022; hence, it is beyond the condonable period. 6. Secondly, referring to S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the bill of entry or the shipping bill, as the case may be. As seen from the above provision, we find that the Proper Officer can take up reassessment on his own only if it is later found based on testing or any other verifications undertaken by the Department that the assessment was not correct and reassessment needs to be done and in that case, the reassessment is done after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant by following the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant had self-assessed and cleared the goods on 08.03.2019 and only in the year 2021 claims short shipment, which cannot be acceded to, since all the documents such as invoices packing list placed on record at the time of assessment showed the quantity as 30. Therefore, if it all there is short-shipment, the appellant ought to have challenged the assessment within the appealable period on production of proof of short-shipment, which he has failed to do so, therefore the question of reassessment under Section 17(5) does not arise. 7. The Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be specified by rules made in this behalf." 43. As the order of self-assessment is nonetheless an assessment order passed under the Act, obviously it would be appealable by any person aggrieved thereby. The expression 'Any person' is of wider amplitude. The revenue, as well as assessee, can also prefer an appeal aggrieved by an order of assessment. It is not only the order of re-assessment which is appealable but the provisions of Section 128 make appealable any decision or order under the Act including that of self-assessment. The order of self-assessment is an order of assessment as per Section 2(2), as such, it is appealable in case any person is aggrieved by it. There is a specific provision made in Section 17 to pass a reasoned/speaking order in the situation in case on verification, self-assessment is not found to be satisfactory, an order of re-assessment has to be passed under Section 17(4). Section 128 has not provided for an appeal against a speaking order but against "any order" which is of wide amplitude. The reasoning employed by the High Court is that since there is no lis, no speaking order is passed, as....