Case Law Details
Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
it is an admitted fact that the duty was paid under protest by the appellant and appellant has paid excess duty of Rs.9,41,005/- and thereafter the appellant vide his letter dated 15.10.2018 requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to pass an appealable reassessment order but the same was not done and thereafter, the appellant filed the refund claim which was rejected by the Order-in-Original on the ground that the appellant has not challenged the assessment of Bill of Entry not got it reassessed before or after out of charge of goods. Further, I find though the refund has been rejected by the original authority but in para 2 of the findings, the original authority has observed that the importer had an option to file an application for amendment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 to rectify any mistake in the Bill of Entry based on the documents available at the time of importation but the learned Commissioner while passing the impugned order in para 12 denied the right of the appellant to seek amendment of Bill of Entry as permissible under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, I find that the Revenue has not challenged the show-cause notice as well as the Order-in-Original allowing the option to the appellant to seek an amendment in the Bill of Entry as permissible under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 but the same was suo moto set aside by the learned Commissioner which is against law as held in various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra. Hence, the said finding of the Commissioner is not sustainable.
Further, I find that an identical issue has been considered by two Division Benches of this Tribunal in the case of Calisons Fibres Pvt. Ltd. cited supra and CC, Tuticorin vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd.: 2020 (372) ELT 577 (Tri.-Chennai). In para 5 in the case of Calisons Fibres Pvt. Ltd., the Division Bench directed that the request for reassessment be treated as application under Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 for amendment of Bill of Entry and accordingly, directed the proper officer to consider the said application and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Since the issue is clearly covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Tribunal, hence, by following the ratio of the said decision I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant with the direction to the original authority that the request of the appellant for reassessment be treated as an application under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for amendment of Bill of Entry and appropriate order be passed in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) whereby the appeal of the appellant was rejected and order passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund claim was upheld.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
