Pranav B Prem

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has dismissed an appeal filed by Minerva Enterprises seeking reassessment of 56 Bills of Entry relating to import of mobile handsets cleared during June to September 2015. The reassessment was sought in December 2019 with the objective of availing the concessional countervailing duty (CVD) rate of 1% under Notification No. 12/2012-CE, instead of the 12% duty earlier paid. The two-member Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) held that the claim was highly belated and legally impermissible once the assessments had already attained finality.

Also Read: No Service Tax on Cost Allocation for In-House Pet-Care R&D: CESTAT Hyderabad Rules in Favour of Mars International

Minerva Enterprises argued that it could not claim the 1% concessional rate at the time of import due to a technical glitch in the Customs EDI system. It relied on a 2016 letter from the Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi acknowledging system-related issues, and the 2018 judgment of the Bombay High Court in Micromax Informatics Ltd. to contend that reassessment and refund were justified. The appellant also placed reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in SRF Ltd., which affirmed that mobile handsets were eligible for the concessional rate of 1%.

The Tribunal, however, noted that all imports were completed by September 2015, and Minerva sought reassessment only on 23 December 2019—after more than four years. It found that no evidence was produced to show that the importer had attempted to pay duty at 1% at the time of clearance or that the customs system prevented it. Further, the 2016 letter relied upon by the appellant indicated that changes to the system were required only for Bills of Entry filed prior to 16 July 2015, whereas Minerva continued filing imports until the end of September 2015.

Also Read: CESTAT Rules, Confiscation Order Unsustainable Once Duty Dispute Settled Under SVLDRS

The Tribunal also distinguished the Micromax Informatics ruling, observing that the importer in that case had contemporaneously pursued its rights by protesting, seeking provisional release, and taking remedial steps. In contrast, Minerva neither protested at the time of assessment nor initiated any remedy until several years later, which indicated that the plea of system glitch was an afterthought.

Emphasizing the legal bar on reopening completed assessments without contemporaneous documentary evidence, the Tribunal reaffirmed that Section 17 and Section 149 of the Customs Act do not permit reassessment or amendment of Bills of Entry after clearance of goods except on the basis of evidence that existed at the time of import—something not demonstrated in Minerva’s case. It relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India, which prohibits claims for refund on the basis of judgments rendered in another person’s case once assessments have reached finality.

Also Read: Bunker Supply of HVFO to ‘ASEAN Explorer’ Qualifies as Duty-Free Export; CESTAT Quashes Excise Demand Against BPCL

Finding the appeal an attempt to reopen finalized assessments solely to claim the benefit of the SRF judgment years later, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order without modification. It concluded that Minerva had “slept over its rights” and that the request for reassessment after four years was not maintainable in law. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal in full and confirmed the order-in-appeal dated 31 December 2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I.

Appearance

Counsel For  Appellant: Ramchandra Mattlyil, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Ram Kumar, Deputy Commissioner

Cause Title: M/s. Minerva Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I

Case No: Customs Appeal No. 85797 of 2022

Coram: Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member), M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member)