9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal 2. Benefit of Notification No. 10/03-CE for imported goods 3. Rejection of refund claim due to deficiencies 4. Commissioner (Appeals) decision subject to unjust enrichment test 5. Maintainability of refund claim without challenging assessment order The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI involved the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue for stay of operation of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order. The Tribunal condoned the delay of two days and proceeded to decide the appeal along with the stay application due to the issue being of short compass. Regarding the benefit of Notification No. 10/03-CE for imported goods, the respondent had imported Shadowless Operation Light for a hospital but the Bill of Entry was assessed without extending the benefit of the Notification. Consequently, the respondent paid Customs duty and filed a refund claim, which was rejected by the original authority for deficiencies in submission of required documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim subject to the test of unjust enrichment, leading to the Revenue appealing against this decision before the Tribunal. The Revenue argued that as per the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, a refund claim contrary to the assessment order is not maintainable without modification or review of the assessment order. Since the assessment order in this case was not challenged and modified, the Tribunal held that the respondents were not entitled to the refund, thereby allowing the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable due to the failure to challenge the assessment order, resulting in the allowance of the Revenue's appeal against the refund claim.
|
