9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Appeal filed by assessee rejected. - C/1441 to 1450 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2011 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Represented by: Shri K.M. Patel, Auth. Representative. for Appellant Shri Rajendra Nagar, SDR for Respondent Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; All these appeals are directed against the order in appeal No. OIA No. 335 to 344-KDL/Cus/Commr(A)/Ahd dated 07.9.2005 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in these appeals is regarding the refund of excess amount of duty paid by the appellant on the transactions of High Sea Sale procurements. 4. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee only on the ground that appeals ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CBEC vide circular dtd. 3212004 dtd. 1 1.5.04 was not observed which clarify that the notional basis of charges on high seas transaction is not appropriate where the importer is in a position to provide the evidence/details of actual charges incurred. Further, it is submitted that the evidence on the subject of actual high sea charges was put up to the assessing officer for assessment was not considered and we did not have any option to accept the views of assessing officer to accommodate our plant requirement and save the demurrage on the vessel. We have filed the refund claims immediately with the customs house and hoped that there would not be any problem to resolve the issue later since the Board has already issued the guidelines to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the recovery of duty under mistake of law.Submitted for kind consideration to condone the delay and assess the issue on merits as a special case." 6. On careful consideration of the written submissions made, we find that there is no dispute that the assessments were completed between 01.6.2004 to 25.11.2004. If the assessments were completed on 25.11.2004, the appeals against the said assessments should have been preferred before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in time as per the statute. The statute authorises the first appellate authority to entertain the appeal if the same are filed within 60 days and extending the period by 30 more days, subject to condonation of delay. In all these cases, we find that there was delay beyond 90 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
