TATA Projects Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 15.05.2020 rejecting the appellant’s refund claim arising from the import of aluminium framework from South Korea. The appellant had imported the goods under four Bills of Entry, classified them under CTH 7610 9020, and claimed exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Sl. No. 610 of Notification No. 15/2009-Cus. During scrutiny by the Risk Management System (RMS), Customs noticed that the supplier had classified the goods under CTH 8480.60, resulting in a mismatch. Consequently, a pre-consultative notice dated 09.10.2017 proposed recovery of differential duty of Rs. 96,34,170/-. The appellant paid the differential duty and applicable interest on 26.10.2017 and 30.10.2017, respectively.
Subsequently, the appellant claimed that the imported goods were correctly classifiable under CTH 848060 and filed a refund application under Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act on 16.07.2018, seeking refund of Rs. 53,62,737.57 along with a Chartered Accountant’s certificate stating that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund on the grounds that the duty was not paid under protest, no appeal had been filed against the Deputy Commissioner (RMS/PCA), the payment was accepted by the importer, and the refund claim was premature. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the rejection.
