Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Principal Commissioner Of Gst&Amp; ... on 31 January, 2020
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. - III
Customs Appeal No. 348 of 2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 153/2012 dated 16.8.2012 passed by the
Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore)
M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. Appellant
Wholesale Banking Operations
No. 1635, Classic Towers, Trichy Road
Coimbatore - 641 018.
Vs.
Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent
6/7, A.T.D. Street Racecourse Road Coimbatore - 641 018.
APPEARANCE:
Shri T. Sundaranathan, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. K. Komathi, JC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 40034 / 2020 Date of Hearing: 31.01.2020 Date of Decision: 31.01.2020 Per Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim by the authorities below observing that the assessment of Bill of Entry has not been challenged by the appellant by filing appeal before appropriate forum.
2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel Shri T. Sundaranathan appeared and argued the matter. It is submitted by him that the appellant had paid duty under protest and the same has been recorded in the Bill of Entry. Hence there is no 2 C/348/2012 requirement for the appellant to challenge the same by filing an appeal. The department ought to have issued an order as to whether they dispute the protest made by the appellant or not.
3. The ld. AR Ms. K. Komathi appeared for the department. She submitted that since the authorities below have passed orders only on technical grounds, the matter has to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for considering the refund claim on merits.
4. Heard both sides.
5. After hearing the submissions and on perusal of records, we find that the appellant has paid duty under protest. Whenever an assessee pays duty under protest, it indicates a challenge by him on the demand of duty made by the department. Therefore it is for the department to pass appropriate assessment order considering the protest made by the assessee. In the present case, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata reported in 2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC) would not apply. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority who shall consider the refund claim on merits and pass orders.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) Member (Judicial) (ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR) Member (Technical) Rex