9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant is aggrieved with the decision, remedy is not in seeking directions from the Tribunal but in filing the appeal. In view of the discussions above, I hold that miscellaneous application filed by the applicants is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is rejected. - C/987/2006 - M/1102/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 21-10-2009 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Written submission,for the Appellant. Shri Rajendra Nagar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]- In this miscellaneous application appellant/applicant seeks is sue of direction by the Tribunal to the departmental authorities to implement and obey order of this Tribunal No. A/271 /WZB/AHD/2008 dated 20-2-2008 and also pass orders considering submission made by the appellant o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em, adjusted against the sanctioned refund or they should refund back the same. With out going into the details of the facts and various issues raised by the appellant, I find the matter was remanded by Tribunal vide its order No.1589/96-A dated 25-5-1996. The same must have been re-adjudicated by the authorities below by this time. Though the confirmation of demand is not the issue in the present case; i find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lucky Steel Industries vide its order dated 26-6-2007, had held that subsequent reduction in price vide another MOA as against original price reflected in MOA will not be the reason enough to adopt the lower assessable value of the imported ship. As such, I am of the view that the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner, under his impugned Order in Original dated 30-6-2009, ordered to file refund claim under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, ignoring the Board's Circulars, judgments of higher authorities including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, submissions and assertions of the applicant. The Assistant Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount of Rs.4, 71,447/- already sanctioned as refund earlier, but adjusted against the demand pending Appeal as pre-deposit. Therefore, once refund claim already sanctioned, as to why he is ordering to file refund claim again? 6. Though the order of demand of duty set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 20-5-1996, despite requests to return the amount within 3 months f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
