9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief to the appellant. Even after 9 years of the passing of the said order, the department has failed to implement the direction of the Tribunal and has rejected the refund claim of the appellant saying that it is premature. This action on the part of the department reveals the utter contempt and judicial indiscipline on the part of the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/410/2012 - Final Order No. A/19/2013-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 8-11-2012 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri P.N. Das, Commissioner (A.R.), for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 85/MCH/AC/OIL UNIT/2012, dated 13-2-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed the finding in the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs impugned before him, that the appellant was liable to pay duty on the quantity of the crude oil that it imported based on the alleged records of the ship stand and not stand by the appellant on the lower quantity that of the oil that were received from the shore tank that is pumped from the ship. 5. The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner against the decision of the Tribunal in National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1072 and in CC v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 109 on merits. Subsequently, the Board in its circular No. 96/2002-Customs of 27-12-2002 has held that quantif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank quantity received is still pending. 5. We do not understand how the Revenue can claim that the refund claim is premature. This Tribunal vide order dated 14-2-2003 had directed the revenue to finalise the assessment in terms of quantity received in the shore tank and to grant refund in accordance with law. However, even after a lapse of 9 years, the Revenue claims that the refund claim is premature. Once a decision has been given by the Tribunal clearly indicating the basis for determination of the duty, it was incumbent on the Revenue to finalise the assessment on the basis of those directions and to provide consequential relief to the appellant. Even after 9 years of the passing of the said order, the department has failed to implem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
