9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its own lapses. If the original adjudicating authority was of the view that reassessed Bill of Entry is required for grant of refund claim, the same was required to be decided first and then the order was required to be passed on the refund application. Thus finding favour with the appellants contention that inasmuch as there was no ‘lis’ involved on any legal point, between the appellant and the Revenue, the refund claim are required to be adjudicated independently. See Aman Medical Products Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT], Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] & Priya Blue Industries [2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein held that where there is no dispute about any legal issue re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared by paying higher quantum of duty. 2. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim on 19-10-2010, seeking refund of excess duty of Rs. 11,28,590/- paid in excess on account of calculation errors. In the said refund application, they produced all the documents including the purchase order, amended/corrected invoices, issued subsequently by the supplier, performa invoice, credit notes issued by the foreign supplier, apology letter of the supplier, the other correspondence entered into between the appellant and the supplier. The appellant also attached previous bills of entry showing customs clearance of same goods at USD 0.075 per piece along with invoices and the original remittance number. Subsequently for obtaining refund, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) was passed in January, 2012, we are informed by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the orders on their applications filed under Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 do not stand passed by the lower authorities till date. 6. It is contended by the learned advocate that there is no need for awaiting the decision on their application filed under Sections 149 and 154 inasmuch as the same were filed as an abundant precaution. Inasmuch as there was no lis between the appellant and the Revenue, their refund claims are required to be scrutinised even without any challenge to the Bill of Entry, in terms of law declared by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi [2010 (25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said issue in the light of law declared by the Delhi High Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. referred supra as also in the case of Priya Blue Industries [2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)], has come to conclusion that where there is no dispute about any legal issue or where the duty stand paid on account of ignorance of exemption notification, refund claims cannot be rejected on the sole ground that assessments were not put to challenge in appeal. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Prima Telecom Ltd. [2011 (266) E.L.T. 386 (Tri.-Del.)] has held that duty paid on higher value in the invoice as compared to the rate mentioned in the purchase order and foreign supplier apologised for the said mistake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
