9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RT OF INDIA) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), in the case where duty was paid inadvertently - Assistant Commissioner has erred while passing the adjudication order as he has failed to take the documents already on recorded into notice while rejecting the claim of refund. Further, the Order-in-Original is also hit by limitation as the exemption granted by the Govt. of India, vide the latest letter dated 2.3.2009, which clearly shows that the exemption order granted earlier vide letter dated 11.1.2007, the validity period of the Ad-hoc exemption order may please be read as 31.12.2009 instead of 31.12.2008. By this letter, the Govt. had extended the exemption period with the retrospective effect, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o marked to the Chief Commissioner of Customs (Imports), the Director of Receipt Audit (INDT) and the Director of Audit also. 2.1 As the goods for which the exemption was granted, arrived during the month of January/February, 2009, the appellant had filed Bill of Entry claiming exemption under the above Ad-hoc Exemption notification order no. 3 of 2007, but as the extension application was pending during the relevant period, the exemption claim was rejected and the duty was assessed which was paid by the appellant under protest at the relevant time. 3. Thereafter, the respondent assessee filed the refund application. Pursuant to which, personal hearing was granted by the Assistant Commissioner/adjudicating authority on 29.6.2009 and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed herein above. He further relies on the ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi - 2010 (250) ELT 30 (Del), wherein the issue in consideration before the Hon'ble High Court was whether the assessee, who is entitled for concessional rate of duty, pays the higher duty by inadvertence, is not entitled to grant of refund of the excess duty paid unless he had filed an appeal against the order by which had deposited the duty, on filing of the Bill of Entry. The Hon'ble High Court held that refund claim of the assessee was maintainable under Section 47 of the Customs Act and non-filing of the appeal against the assessed Bill of Entry does not deprive the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case are also similar to the facts in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Tata Medical centre Trust - 2014 (307) ELT 362 (Tri-Mum), wherein the Division Bench of this Tribunal after referring and distinguishing the rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Flock (India) Ltd. (supra) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (supra), in the case where duty was paid inadvertently, it was held as follows: - 7. We find that the respondents filed refund claim on the basis of ad hoc exemption Order dated 16-2-2010 which was already in existence at the time of import. However, the same was not brought to the notice of the Customs as the respondents were not aware of that order. From the ad hoc exemption order we find that the same was addressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
