2016 (6) TMI 1179 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - jurisdiction - whether in the absence of impugning the original order of assessment by preferring a statutory appeal which was available should this court ought to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction? - Held that - The Petitioners though had statutory remedy of an appeal against the order of assessment did not invoke that remedy but instead directly filed the applications for refund - While dismissing the Petition the Court noted that where the party feels aggrieved by an order of the authority and has adequate alternative remedy which it may resort to and if it does not avail of that remedy the High Court will require a strong case to be made for entertaining the petition in its writ jurisdiction. This court in Wasp Pump Private Limited v. Union of India 2008 (1) TMI 22 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY in a case where the Petitioner did not avail of the alternative remedy but had alleged violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play entertained the writ petition in spite of alternative remedy being available. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund under notification no. 24/2007-Cus dated 1st March 2007 and notification no. 16/2007-CE dated 1st March 2007.
2. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Commissioner of Customs and subsequent appeal.
3. Legal arguments regarding the recourse to refund without appeal against assessment.
4. Examination of the claim on merits by the first appellate authority.
5. The question of exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction in the absence of appealing the original assessment order.
6. Interpretation of the law regarding refund claims and the relevance of notifications.
7. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases.
8. Final decision and dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The respondent, a scientific institution, imported a Multi-application Solar Telescope and sought a refund of additional duty paid. The claim was initially rejected but later allowed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under specific notifications.
2. The Revenue challenged the decision seeking to quash the order allowing the refund, citing legal precedents regarding the necessity of appealing against assessments before claiming refunds.
3. The Authorized Representative argued against the refund without appealing the assessment order, referencing relevant court decisions. The respondent relied on various judgments to support their claim for the refund.
4. The first appellate authority examined the claim on its merits and concluded that the duty had been overpaid, justifying the refund.
5. The tribunal deliberated on the jurisdiction to entertain the case without an appeal against the original assessment order, considering legal principles and past judgments.
6. The tribunal analyzed the interpretation of the law concerning refund claims, notifications, and the implications of self-assessment in the Customs Act, 1962.
7. The tribunal distinguished previous judgments and clarified the circumstances under which they apply, ultimately upholding the maintainability of the refund claim.
8. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no justification to interfere with the order allowing the refund, based on the legal analysis and precedents discussed throughout the judgment.