9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the product in question imported from China. The petitioner's assertions before the authorities as well as in the petition in this respect have not been disputed by the department at any stage. When a duty is collected wholly without authority of law and therefore, without jurisdiction, the question of alternative remedy becomes insignificant, to suggest that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.08.2015 is appealable is not quite correct. It is a mere communication refusing the petitioner's request for refund on the ground that he has no power to suomotu allow refund and it is not an order which is appealable. Even if it were to be so, we would have exercised our jurisdiction to strike down the same. Refund to be gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... test, deposited the said sum of ₹ 3,72,790/ on 14.05.2015 with the Customs Authorities. However, since according to the petitioner, no anti dumping duty was leviable on the product which was imported, the petitioner applied to the authorities to refund such sum, which was unauthorizedly collected from the petitioner. On 03.08.2015, the petitioner wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and contended as under: With reference to the above subject, we have filed a Bill of Entry no. 9098728 dt.01.05.2015 Of 1.9 mm clear flot glass size 1830X1220 mm. Through our CB Agent M/S. D J Shipping Services. Gandhidham. On that bill of entry we have paid Under Protest Anti dumping duty ₹ 3,72,790/ (Rs.Three Lac Seventy Two Thousan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no anti dumping duty prescribed for the product imported by the petitioner viz. 1.9 mm clear float glass from China. To this vital aspect of the matter, the department in its reply dated 18.04.2016 has not raised any dispute. Instead what is suggested is that the petitioner should have preferred appeal against the said order dated 26.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. It is also suggested that the petitioner could have got the bill of entry reassessed or file appeal against the assessment. 6. From the above materials on record, it can be seen that the department has not produced any document suggesting that anti dumping duty was leviable on the product in question imported from China. The petitioner's assertions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
