Case law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 24 Jan 2023

Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs

Legal principle

A self-assessment recorded in a bill of entry is itself an appealable order under Section 128, and no refund can be claimed or entertained under Section 27 until that self-assessment is modified in accordance with law, because refund proceedings are execution-like and the refund authority cannot re-assess or adjudicate exemption conditions.

Court decision

In view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (quoted in the judgment), the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s disposal of the appeals could not be upheld and that the order needed to be passed on the merits; the appeals were allowed and remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits within three months — i.e., in favour of the appellant Samsung.

Facts

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. filed 15 bills of entry at the Mumbai Air Cargo Complex between 7 May and 2 June 2015 (the goods are not identified in the extract) and, seeking revision of the self-assessment, filed 15 appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III on 25.06.2015. By Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-318 to 332/2015/ACC dated 24.08.2017, the Commissioner (Appeals) declined to decide the appeals on merits, holding that a bill of entry cannot be equated with a decision or order under Section 128 and directing the appellant to first exhaust remedies under Sections 17, 18 or 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 by obtaining a speaking order and/or refund order from the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner. Samsung carried the matter to the CESTAT, Mumbai in appeals C/87908, 87910, 87911, 87913-87918, 87920, 87921, 87923-87926/2017 along with early-hearing miscellaneous applications.

Key provisions