9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... practice and clarified that till 31.12.2008, the FOB price would be treated as cum-duty price. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/41946/2013 - Final Order No. 43004 / 2017 - Dated:- 21-11-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant Shri M.S.Nagaraja, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The respondent exported iron ore in bulk vide Shipping bill dated 13.6.2008 and as per the practice in vogue, during the material period, they discharged the export duty taking the export price (FOB) as cum-duty price. Department issued a demand notice to the respondents dated 26.6.2008 on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as paid under protest is not acceptable. 2.3 The respondent had not tried to get assessment corrected even after issue of CBEC Circular dated 10.11.2008. 2.4 The letter dated 4.7.2008 of the respondent conveyed the payment of differential duty liability demanded in the demand notice does not indicate that they are paying the same under protest. 3.0 On the other hand, ld. counsel Shri M.S. Nagaraja appearing for the respondent submitted as under:- 3.1 Although the demand notice was issued to them on 26.6.2008, however, the said notice was never adjudicated and no speaking order was issued. When a demand notice is issued it gives rise to a lis/dispute. The amount was paid and reply filed. The department did not issue any speaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Thereafter, the CBEC vide Circular No.18/2008 dated 10.11.2008 clarified that the existing policy of computation of export duty and cess by taking FOB value as cum-duty value would continue till 31.12.2008. Based on this clarification, the respondent preferred a refund claim for ₹ 39,35,952/-. While the original authority held the refund claim as time-barred, the lower appellate authority allowed the appeal on the ground that the export duty paid should be treated as paid under protest. 5.2 Department has contended that as the respondent has neither paid duty under protest not sought provisional assessment, normal period of six months under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 would apply. It is also contended by the department t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
