9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ags during the period 1-3-2000 to 30-6-2000 by short payment of customs duty and without payment of Special Additional Duty (SAD). Revenue was of the view that respondent is required to pay Special Additional Duty (SAD) due to enactment of Finance Act, 2000. By the time the department was aware of such non-duty paid clearances, the statutory time-limit for raising of demands had expired. Hence, the Department by letter dated 6-9-2001 informed the respondent herein that there is short levy and requested that the amount of short levied duty be remitted. Respondent vide letter dated 17-10-2001 remitted the differential customs duty of Rs. 5,72,734/- but stated that there was no liability on their part to remit the SAD. In response to such a le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal Authority again rejected the refund claim filed by the assessee on the ground, that time-bar demand paid voluntarily need not be refunded. On an appeal, Learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original and allowed the refund claim. Learned SDR would reiterate the grounds of appeal which are as under : 1. The issue referred to the Commissioner Appeals is not to decide whether the short levy was noticed and intimated to importer after statutory time limit. This aspect is already decided by the fact that there was no demand letter issued by the department to importer under Section 28 of CA, 1962. Original authority rejected the claim as inadmissible on the ground that the appellant had contes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; Commissioner Appeal has not discussed this issue at all, for which the case was remanded. Commissioner (Appeals) has just mentioned that the demand was issued 14 months after payment of Duty. There was no demand of duty under Section 28 in this case as stated in the OIA. The letter issued by department informed the importer that there was a short levy on account of wrong duty and non-payment of SAD by importer. The demand was not issued, as it was known fact that the statutory time limit was over. Also there is no demand confirmation. Importer also did not ask for any speaking order to appeal against the issue on merits. Instead they filed a refund claim. 8. Hon'ble CESTAT has decided that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA sales. Even though the demand in question is barred by limitation, on advice received and considering the fact that similar units in CEPZ have paid the amount, we are also arranging to pay the amount of Rs. 2,91,995/- under protest. We reserve our right to apply for refund of the amount in view of our stand on merits as above mentioned. Yours Faithfully, For Tata Tetley Limited, S.B. Kamath, Manager Finance. 5. I have gone through the records of the case, grounds of appeal, orders of Hon'ble CESTAT and submissions at the time of hearing. 6. It is seen that the learned Commissioner while setting aside the order-in-original has recorded the following finding : "The issue to be decided is whether the demand by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
