9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 for clearance of the same by classifying the imported items under CTH 9018.19 @ 25% + nil + 4%. The Department however classified the same under CTH 8539.39 @ 35% + 16%+4%. As the items were required urgently the appellant paid the higher rate of duty under protest and filed an appeal regarding classification. The classification was held in favour of the appellant by the CESTAT Order dated 18.07.2006. Thereafter based on the order of the CESTAT, the appellant filed their refund claim for excess duty of Rs. 4,48,853/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three only) and interest thereon before the Assistant Commissioner along with all the necessary documents supporting their claim including CA certificate which c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but he had chosen to ignore. She further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to consider various documents like fixed asset register, the discharge bills, the annual report and also the CA certificate. She further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the CA certificate produced before the Assistant Commissioner does not prove that incidence of higher duty had not been passed on to the customers. In support of her submission, she relied upon the following decisions: a) 2016 (344) E.L.T. 329 (Tri.-Chennai) - Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. S. Mathivathani Traders b) 2016 (335) E.L.T. 145 (Tri.-Bang.) - Tirumala Bearings (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE & Cus. (Appeals), Visakhapatnam c) 2013 (294) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely by the importer. The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of the Madras High Court cited supra and therefore I hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants are entitled to interest on the delayed refund claim. She further submitted that the appellant filed the application claiming refund on 04.10.2006 and as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944, the Department is supposed to decide the refund claim within a period of three months from the date of filing the refund application and if the same is not decided within a period of three months, the appellant is entitled to claim interest after the expiry of three months from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
