9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2011-12, dated 25.04.2011. M/s P.K. Industries (hereinafter referred to as respondents), vide Bill of Entry No. 1899 dated 12.06.2009 paid the duty amounting to Rs. 9,15,655/- . Thereafter, they filed a refund claim on 18.09.2009 on the ground that they wrongly calculated the customs duty in the above Bill of Entry on the basis of transaction value whereas they were supposed to pay the duty as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) and in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (120) ELT. 285 (S.C.). 2. Heard both the sides. 3. I find that in the present case, the duty has been paid on the basis of transaction value as per Section 14 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I notice that the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value and required to be assessed on the basis of tariff value fixed by the Central Govt. Accordingly, I find that the respondents are entitled to refund provided the conditions of Section 27 are fulfilled. In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has already held that the claim was submitted in time, but neither the original authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
