2024 (3) TMI 1055
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appears that the supplier of the goods in question had classified the same under CTH 8480.60. 2.2 It is the case of the appellant that the above error regarding classification was an inadvertent mistake which came to the light when the Bills of Entry were taken by the Risk Management System (RMS) of the Customs during scrutiny / audit. This prompted the Revenue to issue a pre-consultative notice dated 9.10.2017 indicating inter alia that the classification under the Bills of Entry and the import documents did not match with CTH declared; that the Notification benefit claimed could not be extended and that therefore, the differential duty of Rs.96,34,170/- was required to be paid by the importer. 2.3 It appears that the appellant did make the payment of the demanded differential duty along with interest as proposed in the consultative notice vide challans dated 26.10.2017 and 30.10.2017 towards duty and interest respectively. 3. It appears that the appellant having realized that the classification under CTH 7610 9020 was incorrect and that the imported goods merited classification under CTH 848060 and thus, filed an application for refund of duty and interest (Rs.53,62,737.5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) erred in holding that the duty and interest having been deposited, the Revenue did not proceed with the formal process of issuance of demand notice in terms of Circular No. 43/2005-Cus. * The first appellate authority further erred in rejecting the appeal by holding that the appellant having voluntarily agreed with the payment expressed by the Deputy Commissioner (Customs / RMS) it had exhausted its opportunity of appeal at that point in time itself. * Without prejudice, once the refund claim has been filed, the payment of duty is required to be considered under protest and a speaking order dislodging the protest has to be issued. * The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Gateway and Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2016 (333) ELT 263 (Cal.). 6. Per contra, Shri Harendra Pal Singh, learned Assistant Commissioner defended the impugned order. 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the documents / orders available on record. We find that the only that is required to be considered by us is, "whether the Revenue authorities were correct in not entertaining the appellant's claim?" 7.1 The scope of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and apparently, the appellant responded positively without any demur by paying the duty and interest as indicated. What was indicated / proposed to be demanded was a differential duty and hence nothing more needs to be said about the 'characteristic' of the demand since when proposed to be demanded, the payment was made religiously. Hence, we do not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel that the payment made by the appellant would assume the 'character of duty' under section 28(2) only when the same is accompanied by a letter specifically requesting for non-issuance of a notice. 9. We find that much emphasis has been laid on the non-issuance of letter / communication in writing as specified under sec. 28(2) and it is the case of the appellant that it having not issued any such communication in writing, the payment made by it loses the characteristic of duty. We again do not agree with this contention since section 28 applies with equal force to both the Revenue as well as the appellant, the appellant having adhered / accepted proviso to section 28(1)(a), cannot turn around to say that sec.28(2) was also to be complied with or that it has no responsibility after ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elay for another 30 days. The provisions of Section 128 are extracted hereunder: . . . 43. As the order of self-assessment is nonetheless an assessment order passed under the Act, obviously it would be appealable by any person aggrieved thereby. The expression 'Any person' is of wider amplitude. The revenue, as well as assessee, can also prefer an appeal aggrieved by an order of assessment. It is not only the order of reassessment which is appealable but the provisions of Section 128 make appealable any decision or order under the Act including that of self-assessment. The order of self assessment is an order of assessment as per section 2(2), as such, it is appealable in case any person is aggrieved by it. There is a specific provision made in Section 17 to pass a reasoned/speaking order in the situation in case on verification, self-assessment is not found to be satisfactory, an order of reassessment has to be passed under section 17(4). Section 128 has not provided for an appeal against a speaking order but against "any order" which is of wide amplitude. The reasoning employed by the High Court is that since there is no lis, no speaking order is passed, as such an a....