9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), The Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri R.K. Verma, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 2. As per facts on records, the respondents had filed a refund claim of Rs. 24,010/- against B/E No. 901469, dated 12-2-2008 on the ground that the duty had been assessed for three packages again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the importer of the goods. Generally, the importers file Bill of Entry after the delivery of import manifest. However, an importer is permitted under special circumstances to file a Bill of Entry prior to the delivery of import manifest. However, the filing of Bill of Entry prior to delivery of import manifest and payment of duty in respect thereof does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or re-assessment prior to clearance of the goods is incorrect and unsustainable. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the assessee's contention and vide his impugned order, he has held as under :- "It is seen that in the subject case, the relevant Bill of Entry was filed under second proviso to Section 46(3) of Customs Act, 1962, i.e. Bill of Entry was filed before the delivery import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suo-moto at the time of said assessment without troubling the Appellants to file the claim. Since, the assessing officer did not do his job in full, subsequent avoidable problems cropped up. In short, I fully agree with the Appellant's contention that there was not no cause for re-assessment in allowing the refund." 5. The Revenue's only contention is that the respondents have not challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
