9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 224/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs, Ninety Two Thousands, Two Hundreds and Twenty Four Only) and second for Rs. 10,64,736/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs, Sixty Four Thousands, Seven Hundreds and Thirty Six Only) against the assessment of Ex-Bond Bills of Entry. The refund claims were sanctioned by the adjudicating authority against which the Revenue filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that no physical verification was carried out on the stock lying in the warehouse and the adjudicating authority had travelled beyond the jurisdiction by giving refund without re-opening finally assessed Bills of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal primarily relying upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. C.C., Delhi as reported in 2010 (250) E.L.T. 30 (Del.) and the same stands distinguished by observing that in both the cases i.e. Flock (India) and Priya Blue Industries cited supra, there was an assessment order which was passed and consequently it was held that where the adjudicating authority passed the order which is appealable and party did not choose to exercise the statutory right of appeal, it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authority. Hon'ble High Court accordingly, observed that these judgments will not apply when there is no assessment order on dispute/contest. He submits that in the present case also, there is no 'lis' between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods shall be rate and valuation in force on the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse. There is no dispute that the goods were removed from the warehouse in the month of November - December 2001 and when the reduced value and reduced rate of duty was applicable. It was in these circumstances, that the appellants made application for refund of the excess duty deposited by them, prior to clearance of the goods from the warehouse. The original authority by appreciating the above facts as also by holding that there was no unjust enrichment, allowed refund claim. 5. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the ratio of law decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
