9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T) For the Appellant: Ashish Batra, Advocate For the Respondents: Suchitra Sharma, DR ORDER R.K. Singh, Member (T) 1. The appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 18.08.2009 which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 27.05.2008 in terms of which the Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejecting the refund claims of the appellant passed the following order:-- "Please refer to your nin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll of Entry is finally assessed it reaches its eventuality and becomes an appealable order. Hence the refund claims in respect of above said Bills of Entry are not maintainable." 2. The appellant has contended that it had paid excess duty in as much as the goods (namely Isocyanate Millionate) assessed under CTH 2929 1090 were unconditionally exempt from duty in excess of 7.5% ad valorem under Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi (supra). We find that in the present case, the classification or the valuation of the goods is not in question. Thus the judgement of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Flock India (supra) is not really applicable because in that case the Assessing Officer had passed an adjudication order determining the classification of goods. In other words, in that case the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi (supra) the ratio of which is squarely applicable to the present case, we allow the appeal by way of remanding the case to the primary adjudicating authority with the following direction:-- "(i) The refund claim should be considered on merit in the light of the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
