2019 (1) TMI 448 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - refund claim - Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007 - Held that - The first appellate authority has proceeded on the basis that the appellant had not questioned the assessment before the lower authority which according to us is not proper - We also take note of the pleading that MRP comes into the picture only after the gloves are sterilized and repacked - matter requires to be re-adjudicated by the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal on refund claim rejection as not maintainable.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant imported rubber gloves and was directed by the Assistant Commissioner to indicate Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on the packets for additional Customs Duty assessment. The appellant cleared the goods as suggested, but later protested against the assessment. The appellant argued that MRP marking is required only after sterilization and repacking for retail sale, and thus, the additional Customs Duty assessment was not applicable. The appellant relied on a decision of the Madras High Court to support the appeal's maintainability.

The Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings, but the Tribunal found that the appellant imported gloves in bulk, and MRP is marked only after sterilization and repacking for retail sale. The Tribunal noted a similar case where the High Court directed the appeal to be decided on merits. The Tribunal disagreed with the first appellate authority's basis for rejection and ordered a re-adjudication by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing that MRP becomes relevant only after sterilization and repacking. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand for a fresh adjudication without being influenced by previous findings, leaving all contentions open for consideration.