9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed classification of the said goods under Tariff Sub-heading No. 3004 2099 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Bill of Entry (B/E) filed by them was self-assessed and the customs duty on merit rate was paid by them by debiting the DEPB license No. 0310631674. Subsequent to finalization of the assessment and clearance of the imported goods, the appellants had noticed that the correct classification of the imported goods should have been under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 3004 9049, instead of CTI 3004 2099. The goods under CTI 3004 9049 attract exemption from payment of customs duty in terms of Serial No.83(A) read with List 4 of Notification No.21/2002-Customs dated 01.03.2002. Accordingly, against the assessed B/E, the appellants have pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. A/86984-86985/2019 dated 01.11.2019 passed by this Tribunal. Further, it has also been stated that the appellate remedies provided under Section 128 ibid vis-à-vis Section 149 ibid for amendment of the document (B/E in this case) are entirely distinct and separate proceedings, and both the statutory provisions cannot be clubbed together, which has been done in the impugned order dated 21.08.2014. 3. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 4. We find that the appellants have initially claimed the classification in the B/E with regard to the imported goods under CTI 3004 2099 and after realizing the mistake that the subject goods should appropriately be classified under CTI 3004 9049, had filed the appeal before the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory, an order of re-assessment 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 appeal would not lie, is not sustainable in law, is contrary to what has been held by this Court in Escorts (supra). 44. The provisions under section 27 cannot be invoked in the absence of amendment or modification having been made in the bill of entry on the basis of which self-assessment has been made. In other words, the order of self-assessment is required to be followed unless modified before the claim for refund is entertained under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia 2008 (12) STR 545 (Raj.). In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court, that too is also not under the provisions of the Customs Act. 46. The decision in Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. v. Union of India has followed Micromax (supra). The reasoning employed by the High Courts of Delhi and Madras does not appear to be sound. The scope of the provisions of refund under Section 27 cannot be enlarged. It has to be read with the provisions of Sections 17, 18, 28 and 128. 47. When we consider the overall effect of the provisions prior to amendment and post-amendment under Finance Act, 2011, we are of the opinion that the claim for refund cannot be entertained unless the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
