9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V dated 11.1.2007, for the purpose of import of item like Uncut marble blocks, Myanmar timber, Myanmar wooden carved panels etc. for the construction of their Meditation Centre. The said exemption was initially granted upto 30.6.2007, which was extended upto 31.12.2008 vide Govt. of Indias letter F. No. 460/33/2006-Cus.V dated 30.7.2007 and further vide Govt. of India, Ministry of Finances letter dated 2.3.2009 it was directed that the Ad-hoc exemption order No. 3/2007, as amended by letter dated 30.7.2007, the validity period of the Ad-hoc Exemption Order may be read as December 31, 2009, instead of December 31, 2008. A copy of the Ad-hoc exemption and/or subsequent modifications were also marked to the Chief Commissioner of Customs (Imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal before this Tribunal on the ground that as the respondent assessee had not challenged the assessment of Bill of Entry, the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in allowing the refund claim, which is against the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock India (supra) and in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Eurotex India - 2007 (216) ELT 137 (Tri-LB). 5.1 The learned AR for the Revenue on the basis of aforementioned decision stated that there is error in the impugned order and accordingly it is fit to be set aside. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent assessee have filed the copy of the Ad-hoc exemption order before the Tribunal, as already noticed herein above. He further relies on the ruling of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order. The Hon'ble High Court held that this judgment will not apply when there is no assessment order which was in dispute, like as is in the facts of the present case. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the facts in the present case before us are the same as the facts before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products (supra). The excess duty was paid in exercise of the exemption notification, whereas in the present case the appellant had claimed exemption, but the same was denied and the duty was paid under protest. I find that the facts of the case are also similar to the facts in the case of Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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, which is binding on officers of the Govt. of India. Accordingly, there is no error in the appellate order and the same is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. I further, direct the adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
