9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the assessment of bill of entry - Since no speaking order was passed the matter of refund in the present case cannot be concluded. The adjudicating authority must pass a speaking order thereafter process the refund application of the appellant - matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to pass a speaking order on the assessment of bill of entry, accordingly the refund matter should be reprocessed. Appeal allowed by way of refund. - C/1421/05 - A/94669/16/CB - Dated:- 21-12-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for Appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair The fact of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rejected vide Order-in-Original No. 462/VA/JS/05-06 dt. 25.07.2005 on the ground that the appellant have not filed appeal against the assessed bill of entry therefore not entitled for the refund, in view of the judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) 2004 (172) ELT 145 (S.C.). Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order dt. 4.10.2005 rejected the appeal, therefore the appellant are before us. 2. Shri Prakash Shah, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the lower authorities have wrongl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Imports), Mumbai 2015 (328) E.L.T. 490 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iv) Styleman Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2006 (198) E.L.T. 559 (Tri.-Chennai) (v) Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2009 (240) E.L.T. 490 (Bom.) (vi) Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2004 (170) E.L.T. A308 (S.C.)] (vii) Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) 2004 (172) ELT 145 (S.C.) (viii) Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) (ix) Karan Associates Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2009 (236) E.L.T. 23 (Bom.) (x) Vijal Marine Services Vs. Commissioner of Cus. C. Ex., Goa 2016 (337) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. (supra) and Flock India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable. 3. On the other hand, Shri M.K. Sarangi, Ld. Jt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that the bill of entry in the present case was assessed finally, therefore, the only option left with the appellant was to challenge the assessment of bill of entry, otherwise the assessment attained finality. Accordingly no refund arises out of the assessed bill of entry unless until the assessment of bill of entry is challenged by way of filing the appeal before the Commissioner. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Commr. of Cus. (Imp.), Nhava Sheva Vs. Euro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the refund claim the assessing officer was supposed to pass a speaking order on the assessment of bill of entry. The appellants had made a specific request for an orders of assessment vide their letter dt. 12.10.2001. Since no speaking order was passed the matter of refund in the present case cannot be concluded. In this fact, we are of the view that the adjudicating authority must pass a speaking order thereafter process the refund application of the appellant. Our view is supported by the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of C.G. Elin Power Systems Ltd. (supra). We therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to pass a speaking order on the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
