Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus Hatcom Agro Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 32 Centax 362 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
- Shri Mihir Ranjan, Special Counsel, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Sandeep Chilana a/b. Priyojeet Chatterejee, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The respondent assessee imported goods that were eligible for concessional customs duty under two distinct exemption notifications, namely Notification No 84/2017-Cus, dated 08-11-2017 allowing duty at fifty percent, and Notification No 93/2017-Cus, dated 22-12-2017 allowing nil duty. The assessee inadvertently cleared the goods under Notification No 84/2017-Cus and paid duty accordingly. Thereafter, the assessee submitted an application for amendment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act 1962, along with a refund application for the excess duty paid. The jurisdictional officer under the Customs Act rejected the refund claim, citing that the assessment had not been formally challenged and that the duty payment was correctly made under the chosen exemption. However, the Commissioner Appeals accepted the assessee’s submission that a more beneficial exemption was available and allowed the refund. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT Kolkata.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that an amendment application under Section 149 of the Customs Act 1962, by its very character, amounts to a challenge to the original assessment. The Tribunal placed reliance on its prior ruling in Uma Exports Ltd, reported at (2024) 14 Centax 226 (Tri–Cal), which had identical facts, and held that in situations involving two concurrent exemption notifications, an importer has the legal right to choose the more beneficial exemption. The Department of Revenue’s reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in ITC Ltd [2019 (368) ELT 216 SC] was held to be misplaced, as the assessee had effectively contested the assessment through the amendment procedure. Similarly, the Department’s reference to Dilip Kumar and Company [2018 (361) ELT 577 SC] was rejected, since there existed no ambiguity in the applicability of Notification No 93/2017-Cus, dated 22-12-2017. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner Appeals and dismissed the Department’s appeal.
List Of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Para 8]
- Commissioner v. Uma Export Ltd. — (2024) 14 Centax 226 (Tri. – Cal.) — Followed [Paras 5, 7]
- ITC Limited v. Commissioner — 2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 4, 8.1]
