9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f said Notification was not claimed by the Appellants at the time of import, but claimed at a later date, the legitimate exemption, which was otherwise available, should not have been denied. In the regime of self-assessment, the scope for grievance and filing of appeal is non-existent, as non-filing of appeal against the assessment of the Bill of Entry does not deprive the assessee the right to file refund. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/746 to 751/06 C/CO/446, 438, 445, 436, 437, 439/06 - A/86201-86212/17/CB - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Sachin Chitnis, Advocate for appellant Shri D.K. Sinha, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al duty is in lieu of excise duty on like articles, if produced or manufactured in India. The Counsel further submitted that the Parts of Computers being imported are chargeable to Nil rate of duty at Sr.No.261of Notification 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002, provided that they are used in manufacture of Computers. He further relies on CA certificate to support his submission that the Parts of Computers imported were used for manufacture of Personal Computers. He would submit that similar issue came up before Hon ble Supreme Court in Engee Industrial - 2016 (335) ELT 197 (SC) and SRF Ltd. - 2015 (318) ELT 607 (SC), wherein the benefit of exemption was allowed. He would also submit that the appellants have challenged the assessment orders and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal duty under Section 3 on the import of a manufactured or produced article, actual manufacture or production of like article in India is not necessary. We find that decision Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Engee Industrial (supra) is directly on the point, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below for ease of reference: The respondent No.1 herein had imported a ship in which Bill of Entry was filed. This Bill of Entry specifically declared that the import of ship was for breaking and for no other use. The customs authorities charged additional duty thereupon which was challenged by the respondents. Though learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, in the intra-court appeal filed by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatue, cannot be denied just because of the same was not claimed initially. We are of the view that although the benefit of said Notification was not claimed by the Appellants at the time of import, but claimed at a later date, the legitimate exemption, which was otherwise available, should not have been denied. 4.2 Another ground for denying the refund by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that that the Appellants have not challenged the assessment order and, hence, they would not be eligible for refund of duty paid. We find that in the regime of self-assessment, the scope for grievance and filing of appeal is co-existent, as non-filing of appeal against the assessment of the Bill of Entry does not deprive the assessee the right to file refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
