Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 422 - CESTAT BANGLORE
Refund of the excess duty paid - valuation of software - goods imported by the appellant were not examined at the time of import - revised purchase order and revised invoice generated at a later date by the supplier on the request of the appellant - HELD THAT:- For invoking Section 149, relevant documents should have been in existence at the time of import but in this case, obviously the invoice was revised based on the request of the appellant and the veracity of the genuineness of this invoice could not be verified since the goods were not examined at the time of import nor were available for examination.
The Supreme Court in the case of ESCORTS LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1994 (2) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT] observed that “it may be noticed that the Act does not prescribe any particular form in which the order of assessment is to be made. In the very nature of things, no formal order of assessment can be expected when there is no dispute as to the classification or the rate of duty, no formal order can be expected in such a case, it is more like `across-the-counter’ affair.
Section 149 amendments cannot be read in isolation making these sections with regard to classification or valuation redundant. Reassessment of any assessment cannot be equated with an amendment under Section 149. The legislature, in the interest of justice, has not laid down any time limit under Section 149, does not take away the fact that any changes in valuation should not be in tandem with the laws laid down for refund or demand or else there will be no end for amendments which will result in utter chaos and de-stabilize the entire gamut of the Customs Act, 1962.
In the present case, first of all, no documents existed at the time of assessment and the documents produced for amendment were not available at the time of assessment, these surfaced at much later date. The goods were not examined and the invoice produced by the appellant at the time of import had no factual errors and therefore to change the value of the imported goods based on an amended purchase order and revised invoice will not be a simplicitor amendment envisaged under Section 149. Moreover, the Commissioner (A) has clearly observed that there is no evidence to indicate that this revised purchase order and the revised invoice related to the transaction already completed - There are no evidences produced till date with regard to the revised transactions as to how the differential amounts reflect in the books of accounts of the supplier as well as the appellant. In view of the above, the question of considering change in value as mere amendment as per Section 14 read with Section 149 is ruled out. Therefore, the Commissioner (A) was right in rejecting these changes and in disallowing reassessment of the imported goods.
The appeal is rejected.