Minerva Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai)
In Minerva Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai), the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, considered an appeal challenging the refusal of reassessment of 56 Bills of Entry through which imported mobile handsets were cleared between June 2015 and September 2015. The appellant had paid the applicable Countervailing Duty (CVD) at the higher rate of 12% instead of the concessional 1% rate under Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sr. No. 263A). The appellant sought reassessment and refund of the excess duty following the Supreme Court’s decision in SRF Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2015 (318) ELT 607 (S.C.)], which clarified the applicability of the notification. Previous attempts by the appellant, including an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand for a speaking order by the Adjudicating Authority, were unsuccessful, prompting the present appeal to CESTAT.
During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel contended that reassessment had been denied despite evidence of a technical glitch in the Department’s computer system, which had prevented payment at the concessional rate. The appellant relied on a letter from the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports), New Delhi dated 20.10.2016, addressed to the ADG, Directorate General of Systems, Customs & Central Excise, and the Bombay High Court judgment in Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. Union of India [2019 (369) ELT 543 (Bom.)], which acknowledged similar system glitches. The appellant also cited the Supreme Court decision in ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV [2019 (368) ELT 216 (S.C.)], which clarified that assessments or reassessments could be conducted under provisions other than Section 128 of the Customs Act, including Section 17. The appellant argued that no time limit was prescribed under Section 17(3), (4), and (5) for reassessment of self-assessed Bills of Entry, and therefore, reassessment for refund should be permissible despite the passage of four years after clearance.
