9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued by the DGH at the time of importation. It is seen that the goods were cleared on payment of duty as per the direction of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. - Following decision of assessee's own previous in [2011 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/282/2006 & C/288/2006 - FINAL ORDER No. 40528-40529 / 2014 - Dated:- 23-6-2014 - SHRI P.K. DAS AND SHRI R. PERIASAMI, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri R. Raghavan, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Indira Sisupal AC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: P.K. Das, These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 28 Bills of Entry on the basis of Essentiality Certificates. By adjudication order dated 23.12.2005, the Assistant Commissioner rejected 23 refund claims on the ground that refund claims were filed beyond six months and the assessment orders were not challenged as per judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue s case - 2004 (172) ELT 145, the claims cannot survive. By order dated 20.02.2006, the Asst. Commissioner again rejected another 5 refund claims on the ground that two refund claims were barred by limitation and others on the ground that no appeal has been filed against the assessment orders. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed by the appellants and upheld the adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the case in the light of the Hon ble Delhi High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court. As per the direction of the Hon ble Delhi High Court and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, by CAO No.ADC/1604/2011/ADJ/ ACC dated 01.08.2011, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs (import), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, sanctioned the refund claims. 5. The Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue submits that they have not claimed provisional assessment. They have not paid the duty under protest in terms of the Hon ble Delhi High Court and therefore, the lower authorities rightly rejected the refund claims. She further reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that they have not challenged the assessment order, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt disposed the writ petition with the direction as under:- We find substance in the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the customs authorities to consider and dispose of such refund claims as had been preferred by the petitioner with them by taking into consideration the essentiality certificates, issued to the petitioners by respondent No. 2. The appellant in respect of import through Mumbai Port went up to the Hon ble Supreme Court and by judgment as reported in 2011 (264) ELT 486 (S.C) directed as under:- 14. The facts in the present case are that, since the request of the appellant for issuance of Essentiality Cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is regrettable that the Board of Revenue failed to realize that like any other subordinate tribunal, it was subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Just as the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court have to be faithfully obeyed and carried out throughout the territory of India under Article 142 of the Constitution, so should be the judgments and orders of the High Court by all inferior courts and tribunals subject to their supervisory jurisdiction within the State under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. We cannot but deprecate the action of the Board of Revenue in refusing to carry out the directions of the High Court. In Bhopal Sugar Industries Limited v. ITO, (1961) 1 SCR 474, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neously rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs vide its order dated 23-12-2004 ignoring the specific directions issued by the Delhi High Court vide its order dated 11-3-2003, to the customs authorities to dispose of the appellants claim of refund by taking into consideration the Essentiality Certificates issued by the DGH. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs has rejected the refund claim of appellant on the ground of unjust enrichment and failure to challenge the assessment of the Bills of Entry at the appellate stage, without even considering the Essentiality Certificates in the light of specific and binding directions of the High Court. 21. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and direct the Customs authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
