9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made imports under DFIA scheme in terms of Notification No. 40/2006-Cus., dated 1-5-2006 under 5 Bills of Entry which were finally assessed and the goods were cleared. The clearances were made in between June 2009 to December 2009 and the appellant filed refund claim on 18-2-2010 on the ground that the Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid by them at the time of import in terms of Section 3(5) of Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment, there is no lis between the Department and the party and therefore the decisions relied upon by the lower authority for rejecting the refund claims are not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, he also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 367 (Tri.-Bang.), and submit that a similar view has been taken. 3. I h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . "7.1 In this case, it is not in dispute that the impugned goods are unconditionally exempt from the Additional Duty (Imports) by virtue of Notification No. 20/2006 dated 1-3-2006. The appellants have stated that they had banked upon the expertise of the Custom House Agent and also the assessing officers. Consequent to the assessment, they paid duty to the tune of Rs. 21,61,129/-. This is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Priya Blue Industries (supra) and in view of the fact that at the time of assessment, the appellant had simply paid the duty without disputing the same, it cannot be said that there was a lis between the importer and the Department, the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is applicable in this case. 5. In view of the above, the Impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
