9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is is an appeal Filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. C.Cus.722/05 dt. 31-10-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Minerva Trade Links (P) Ltd. imported a consignment of "RBD Palmolein" under Bill of Entry No. 33544 dated 24-12-99. The Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally and the importer made an extra duty deposit (ED ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal filed by the Revenue, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the EDD is not duty is disputed. The EDD was not a pre-deposit. Therefore, provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act applied. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserved to be set aside. 4. Heard both sides. 5. I find that Section 27 regulates refund of excess duty deposit made by the importer. These prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found that the value shown was correct. In these circumstances, even without any letter or application from the appellants, the department is duty bound to refund the deposit. The appellants have furnished enormous evidence to show that the extra duty deposit has not been passed on to the buyers of the goods. They have explained the reason for showing the amount in the accounts of the year 2000- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
