Payment of Duty under Protest for Assessed Bills of Entry cannot be treated as 'Orders' or 'Decisions' in Appeal Procedure: CESTAT [Read Order]
The bench also noted that, when the matter of proof of the other 38 appeals was called out, the appellant had not submitted any documents to substantiate their claim that thirty-eight assessed B/Es were appealed before the first appellate authority.
![Payment of Duty under Protest for Assessed Bills of Entry cannot be treated as Orders or Decisions in Appeal Procedure: CESTAT [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/03/30/2130901-payment-duty-under-protest-assessed-bills-entry-orders-decisions-appeal-procedure-cestat-taxscan.webp "Payment of Duty under Protest for Assessed Bills of Entry cannot be treated as Orders or Decisions in Appeal Procedure: CESTAT [Read Order]")
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench, held that payment of duty under protest for assessed bills of entry (B/E) cannot be treated as ‘orders’ or ‘decisions’ in the appeal procedure. Finally, the tribunal rejected 38 out of total 41 appeals and allowed the other 3. Also Read: Service Tax Notice u/s 73Unsustainable When Liability...
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench, held that payment of duty under protest for assessed bills of entry (B/E) cannot be treated as ‘orders’ or ‘decisions’ in the appeal procedure. Finally, the tribunal rejected 38 out of total 41 appeals and allowed the other 3.
Also Read: Service Tax Notice u/s 73Unsustainable When Liability already Declared in ST-3 Returns: CESTAT
The facts of the case are that the appellants had imported “Cisco-Catalyst 3850 series Ethernet Switches” and classified them under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8517 6290. The appellants claimed benefit of concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) in terms of Sr. No. 20 of Notification No. 57/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017.
After some back and forth, the appellants referred to the order set aside by the Tribunal on 30.09.2024 in Cisco Commerce India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo Import), Mumbai (2024) and contended that the issue regarding the entitlement to benefit is no more open for any debate.
The CESTAT recorded that denial of benefits of concessional rate of duty to the appellants cannot stand for judicial scrutiny since the order referred to has been upheld by the Bombay High Court. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the three appeals by setting aside the order dated 17.08.2022.
The bench also noted that, when the matter of proof of the other 38 appeals was called out, the appellant had not submitted any documents to substantiate their claim that thirty-eight assessed B/Es were appealed before the first appellate authority, i.e., the v). It was observed that no orders were passed by the Commissioner under Section 128A in disposing of 38 assessed B/Es.
Conclusively, it was held that Section 128 provides for filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and only any ‘decision’ or ‘order’ passed by Customs officer lower than a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs may be appealed. S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) found no substance in the submission that the appellants had paid the duty under protest in respect of the assessed B/Es and the protest payment should be taken as a challenge to the assessment and held that 38 remaining appeals were not maintainable as abovementioned.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
