9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Achariya, Advocate For Respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal by Revenue is against order dated 17/01/2012 of Commissioner (Appeal), BBSR. 2. The respondent have filed a shipping bill on 23/02/2011 for export of Iron Ore Fines. The said shipping bill was assessed to duty as per the prevailing rate of 5% ad valorem on 24/2/2011. Export order for the said shipping bill was passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that there is no reassessment as per law and the refund claim by the respondent is eligible to them. 3. The Revenue is aggrieved by the said order and filed this appeal. Ld. A.R. elaborated the grounds of appeal and submitted that Section 16 read with Section 50 and 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 makes it clear that the requirement for granting let export order is that goods should not have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chronology of dates mentioned herein above are not in dispute. Revenue asserted that when the goods are not fully loaded, the revised rate of duty will apply and accordingly the respondent has to pay the same. First of all, we note that the impugned order clearly recorded that there is no reassessment at all, of the shipping bill. It is recorded that the shipping bill which was duly assessed to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay High Court in the case of Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (257) ELT 414 (Bom.) and in the case of Narayan Bandekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs & Central Excise, GOA reported in 2010 (259) ELT 362 (Bom.). The High Court examined the relevant date for export of applicable in identical situation and held that the date of let export order permitting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
