9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent or otherwise. 4. The respondent herein had exported iron ore fines in bulk as per the sales contract entered by them. Export of the said contract took place on 03.05.2007 and the respondent discharged the export duty at the rate of Rs. 300 per MT. It was noticed by the respondent that Notification No. 62/2007 Cus. dated 03.05.2007 was applicable for the exports conducted by them and the rate of export duty was reduced from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 50/- per MT. Respondent filed refund claim of the excess duty paid by them. Adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim but credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Authority. First Appellate Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of the Customs Act 1962. He also produced a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajkumar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Tuticorin 2010 (253) E.L.T. 795 (Tri.-Chennai) to support this proposition. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made, I find that the First Appellate Authority was correct in setting aside the entire Order-in-Original and sanctioning the refund to the appellant. The findings of the First Appellate Authority are as under: "7. I have considered the arguments of both the parties to the appeal. At the time of entering into contract and filing the shipping bill, the rate of duty was Rs. 300/- PMT. For Iron Ore fines with Fe content less than 62%, duty was reduced from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 50/- per MT vide Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exporter has to pay the prescribed duty. The ultimate sale price will obviously include this price. As the duty on the date of let export/export/assessment was Rs. 50/PMT, that is the amount to be paid by the appellants and anything paid in excess/collected in excess will have to be refunded to them. The easiest solution to this confusion would have been to submit the Bank Realisation Certificate which has not been done. The appellants have further relied on the following cases: Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. Ken Agritech Pvt. Ltd. cited in 2004 (166) ELT 339 (Tri.-Bang.) Stay application against order allowing refund Impugned order already been given effect to and refund allowed to respondents Application infructuous Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
