Order Date – 22 March 2024

Parties: M/s.TATA Projects Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. TATA Projects Ltd, was issued with a pre-consultative notice demanding differential duty arose on account of mis-match with regard to the classification of the product imported.
• The appellant did make the payment of the demanded differential duty along with interest. Later having realising the wrong classification the appellant filed a refund claim for duty and interest paid, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs.

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of duty paid?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that  when pre-notice consultation is issued, the notice could choose either to accept the proposal made therein, or not to accept in which event, the Revenue would invariably issue a Show Cause Notice, that cause of action is clearly missing here, for the Revenue to issue Show Cause Notice. That means to say, the Revenue was estopped from proceeding further in terms of section 28(1)(a) since the appellant accepted the short-payment of duty and made the payment as proposed / demanded.
• It appears that the differential duty arose on account of mis-match with regard to the classification of the product imported. It is the case of the appellant that the correct classification was 8480.60. But there was no request made for rectification / re-assessment, since it is the settled position of law that since acceptance of Bill of Entry is considered as self-assessment per se, the importer if aggrieved by the same, has to seek for modification / rectification / re-assessment, rather, the appellant chose to seek only the refund which has rightly been rejected by the original authority.
• The Appeal is dismissed.