9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed and was not entitled to the benefit of serial No. 400 of Notification No. 21/2002 which it did not claim (nor could it have claimed) as it did not possess the requisite certificates/ documents. The judgements of Bombay High Court in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2009 (6) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. CC, Delhi (2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT) are clearly not applicable to the present case, because in those cases duty was paid due to ignorance. Indeed, in the circumstances of this case, the judgements of Supreme Court in the cases of C.C. Vs. M/s. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Priya Blue Vs. CC (Prev.) (20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . At the time of filing of Bills of Entry, the appellant did not claim the benefit of nil rate of duty under Notification No.21/2202 (S.No.400), dated 01.03.2002, nor did it produce the requisite documents/certificates required for being eligible for the said benefit. The Bills of Entry were thus finally assessed allowing the benefit claimed by the appellant under project import in terms of Notification No.21/2002 [S.No.399 (iv)], dated 01.03.2002. Therefore, the refund claim filed on the ground that as per Notification No.21/2002 (Sr.No.400) it was eligible for nil rate of duty was rejected by the concerned Asst. Commissioner on the ground that the appellant had not sought the reassessment of the relevant Bills of Entry citing judgements o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [serial No. 399 (iv)] which was granted. It did not seek the benefit of the said Notification No. 21/2002 (serial No. 400) because at that time it did not satisfy the conditions required for extending the benefit of the said Notification No. 21/2002 (serial No. 400) as has also been noted by Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that at the time of assessment of Bills of Entry the appellant did not claim benefit of Notification No.21/2002 (Sr.No.400) nor did it produce the requisite documents/ certificates required for claiming benefit under Notification No. 21/2002 (serial No. 400). Thus, it is obvious that contrary to what has been claimed by the appellant, at the time of assessment of Bills of Entry, it was entitled to the benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
