9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. 21.01.2013, the old rate of 4% shall be applicable. The appellant was not liable to pay 2% excess duty, hence the same is refundable. However adjudicating authority, since rejected the claim mainly on the issue of effective date of notification, all the documents submitted by the appellant were not verified and also the aspect of unjust enrichment, limitation etc. also need to be examined - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. C/10282/2017-DB - A/11509/2018 - Dated:- 11-7-2018 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Appellant: Mr. D.K. Trivedi (Advocate) For Respondent: Mr. J. Nagori (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair Brief facts of the case are that M/s State Trading C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.2013 the rate of customs duty was enhanced from 4% to 6%, therefore, the duty was correctly paid. Being aggrieved by the order in original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who also concurring with the original authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is before us. 2. Sh. D. K. Trivedi, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that though the Notification No. 1/2013-Cus was issued on 21.01.2013 but the same was issued for publication in the official gazette only on 04.02.2013, therefore, the Notification was effective from 04.02.2013 and not from 20.01.2013, therefore, the rate of duty of 4% applicable on the date of filing of bill of entry. In support of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Kundan Rice Mills (supra) wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment of Param Industries Ltd. (supra) was considered and held that the Notification No. 1/2013-Cus was printed published and offered for public only on 04.02.2013 as such effect of notification cannot be given to any date prior to that date. Considering the effects and ratio of the above said judgment in the case of Kundan Rice Milss (supra), we are of the view that the appellant was not liable to pay 2% excess duty, hence the same is refundable. However adjudicating authority, since rejected the claim mainly on the issue of effective date of notification, all the documents submitted by the appellant were not verified and also the aspect of unju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
