9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Held that: - the order of the original authority is not a rejection of the refund claim but identifies lacunae that impede processing of the claim. It also goes on to advice the applicant to either produce an order-in-appeal setting aside the assessment or to get the bill of entry re-assessed - As the order of the adjudicating authority is not a rejecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of diamond segments . The goods were assessed to duty at effective rate that they were eligible for in notification no. 13/2005-Cus dated 1 st March 2005 and discharged duty liability of ₹ 3,41,310/-. Thereafter, having came to know that they are eligible for exemption notification no. 11/2005-Cus dated 1 st March 2005 at serial no. 460, they filed a refund claim for the differential amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal authority, the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court supra and circular no. 24/04 dated 18 th March 2004 of Central Board of Excise and Customs. It is contended that setting aside of order-in-original by the first appellate authority without assigning any reason was improper and that the first appellate authority should not have delved into the eligibility for a different rate of duty when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely directs the lower authority to examine the claim for benefit under the said notification. Benefit under the said notification is available to the respondent either by challenge to the assessment or by obtaining re-assessment under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. This is no different from the advice given to the importer by the original authority. 6. That the order of original author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
