2001 (10) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 96 declaring value of the consignment at US $ 17600. Customs authorities, Amritsar assessed the value of the same consignment at Rs. 200 per Kg. and thus determined the value of the consignment at Rs. 8,93,025 instead of Rs. 6,40,465 declared by the party and customs duty at Rs. 4,64,374 was imposed. 2. Admittedly, the assessee did not challenge the above assessment. On the other hand, he filed an application under Section 27 of the Customs Act for refund of duty contending that the assessment made at the rate of Rs. 200 per Kg. was unsustainable. The application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28-11-97 holding that the price declared by the party was not the correct assessable value as the price of similar goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filing refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority committed an error in passing earlier order. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that in the present case the Department cannot be permitted to raise the preliminary objection since it did not file an appeal or cross appeal against the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the appellant on the issue regarding transaction value. 4. We find no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. It is true that the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the transaction value declared by the appellant would be treated as value for the purpose of assessment of white hing imported by them. This finding is rendered in an appeal filed aga .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... view, will run counter to the scheme of the Act and will introduce an element of uncertainty in the entire process of levy and collection of excise duty. Such a position cannot, be countenanced. The view taken by us also gain support from the provision in sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 wherein it is laid down that where as a result of any order passed in appeal or revision under the Act, refund of any duty becomes due to any person, the proper officer, may refund, the amount to such person without his having to make any claim in that behalf. The provision indicates the importance attached to an order of the appellate or revisional authority under the Act therefore, an order which is appealable under the Act is not challenged then the order is not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X