9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1411 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - erroneous assessment of the goods exported - Held that - It can be noticed that the 1st Appellate Authority has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal to come to a conclusion which we find is the correct proposition of the law - the impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Refund due to erroneous assessment of exported goods. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 61/2010, dated 2-12-2010. The issue for consideration was the refund arising from the erroneous assessment of goods exported. The adjudicating authority rejected the respondent's contentions and disallowed the refund claim, while the 1st Appellate Authority set aside the order-in-original. The Revenue contended that the 1st Appellate Authority incorrectly applied a Board Circular dated 10-11-2008 for clearances made before that date. However, the 1st Appellate Authority's finding was consistent with the law settled by the Tribunal. The 1st Appellate Authority noted specific cases where duty was paid on certain dates, and the appellant later sought a refund based on the Circular issued after the assessment. The Circular allowed the computation of export duty based on FOB price as cum-duty price until a specified date. The Tribunal's decision in a previous case was cited, emphasizing that if excess duty was collected due to a mistake in assessment, it should be refunded without the importer needing to challenge the assessment. The assessing officer was responsible for correctly quantifying duty liability, and in this case, the excess duty claimed by the appellant was deemed lawful. The 1st Appellate Authority's reliance on the Tribunal's decision was deemed correct by the subsequent judges. Ultimately, the judges found the impugned order to be correct and legally sound, requiring no interference. The order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 24-10-2017.
|
