Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 802 - HC - CustomsRefund of excess duty paid - rejection of refund on the ground that the Petitioner had not submitted reassessed bill of entries on the basis of which the Petitioner was claiming the refund - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- In consonance with amendments, defination of term assessment conferred in Section 2(2) of the Act has also been suitably modified. Prior to amendments of 8th April, 2011 term “assessment” was defined as so include provisional assessment, reassessment and any order of assessment in which duty assessed is nil. Post amendments of 8th April, 2011 term assessment includes self assessment also. Instead of referring to claim of refund of duty or interest paid in pursuance of the order of assessment or borne by him, the amended Section 27 merely refers to the claim of refund of duty or interest paid or borne by the refund claimant. Thus, earlier reference to the refund of duty or interest paid pursuant to an order of assessment is now deleted. This would be in consonance with the changed procedure for clearance of imported goods as contained in Section 17 of the Act. There is no question of challenging the selfassessed bill of entries. The Department has cited as many as 10 defects in the refund application. - Once the Petitioner 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 can be seen to have been satisfied through correspondence. Section 149 of the Act provides that a proper officer may at his discretion authorize a document after it is presented in the Custom House to be amended. Proviso to Section 149 clearly lays down that no amendment of bill of entry shall be authorized to be amended after imported goods have been cleared for home consumption. Thus, the opportunity to have the bill of entry amended in terms of Section 149 of the Act, was simply not available to the Petitioner. Unjust enrichment - Held that:- When there is no clarity in the order itself, whether the Competent Authority has accepted the Petitioner's evidence as to establishing the fact that the duty element has not been passed to any other person, we would like to tread cautiously. The sole objection contained in the impugned orders for rejection of the Petitioner's refund claims is overruled. The refund applications are revived - petition disposed off.
|