Case Law Details
Micromax Informatics Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court )
Conclusion: Refund applications could not be denied merely because the assessment orders were not challenged by assessee or reassessment of the bill of entries was not done.
Held: In the instant case, assessee-company imported several consignments of mobile handsets during the period between July, 2014 to June, 2015. On such imports, assessee paid full CVD at the applicable rate without availing benefit of exemption notification dated 17th March, 2012. Assssee had filed refund application but had not challenged the original assessment order and had not got the re-assessment done for the B/E in terms excess duty paid by them at the time of assessment of the Bills of Entry. Department opined that the benefit of exemption notification dated 17th March 2012 would not be available to import of goods and refund applications was rejected on the ground that assessee had not submitted reassessed bill of entries on the basis of which assessee was claiming the refund. It was held the single objection of the Department namely that without having assessment orders set aside, no refund claim would be maintainable. The impugned order thus effectively dismissed assessee’s refund claim finally. Assessee’s contention was accepted that there was no question of challenging the self-assessed bill of entries. As noted in the first deficiency memo, the Department had cited as many as 10 defects in the refund application. Once assessee replied to such communication in detail, in subsequent communications the authority confined his objection only to the question of the assessment not having been revised or set aside. Thus, all other objections of not supplying documents or details were waived or could be seen to have been satisfied through correspondence.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the petition was taken up for final disposal at this stage. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The Petitioner has challenged orders passed by the Respondent No.3 rejecting the Petitioner’s refund claims for the period between July, 2014 to June, 2015.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
