9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in- Appeal No. 55/2005 misc.(ACC) dated 14.06.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai). 2. The brief facts of the case are the appellant M/S MTNL had imported a consignment of CDMA equipment for use in basic telephone service. As per MTNL purchase order on 13th Dec, 2002, six items were imported vide invoice no. 3A 9120 dated 25.03.2003 and other two items were im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide the B.E no. 595225 dated 29.03.2003 and 595226 dated 29.03.2003. 3. Accordingly, Appellant had filed the refund claim on 20.12.2004 on the ground that at the time of clearance of the goods, they did not claim the benefit of notification 23/22 cus. which they were entitled to, therefore excess duty was paid by them to the extent of SAD which was to be refunded to appellant. The adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CESTAT in the matter of De Nova India Limited v/s Comm. of Customs. [2012 (285) ELT 266 (Tri-Mumbai)], and also in Ruchi Soya Ind. Ltd. v/s C.C., [2013 (290) ELT 105 (Tri.)]. 4.2 The appellant counsel further relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Aman Medical Products v/s C.C. - 2010 (250) ELT 30 (Del.) After considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Blue and Floc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant relies on the following judgments in support of their cases. (i) Benett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v/s Comm. of Customs (Bangalore) - [2008 (232) ELT 367] (Tri-Bang.)] (ii) Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v/s CC (ACC & Import) - [2013 (290) ELT 105 (T)] (iii) M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. v/s Comm. of Central Excise, Goa. - [2010 - - 1729 - CESTAT, Mum.] Accordingly the counsel urges for setting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough erroneously not claimed by appellant in the bill of entry. I further hold that the object of sec. 27 (i) & (ii) is to cover those cases where the duty is paid by a person without an order of adjudication, as in the present case where the appellant paid excess duty in ignorance of the Notification, which allows it to pay concessional rate of duty, merely after filing a bill of entry. 8. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
