9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: P.V. Subba Rao.] 1. This appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.08/2009 (G) (D) Cus, dated 02.07.2009. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent exported iron ore fines from Krishnapatnam and paid Customs Duty @ Rs. 300/- per metric ton (MT). An export duty is leviable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te authority who rejected the appeal. The present appeal is against this impugned Order-in-Appeal on the grounds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in the case of Priya Blue Industries Vs Commissioner of Customs [2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC)] held that an order of assessment in the bill of entry or shipping bill is final and if a refund has to be claimed the order of assessment has to be challenged fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned departmental representative reiterated the arguments made in the appeal and argued that unless the assessments of the shipping bills are challenged the exporter could not have claimed the refund. Therefore, the Asst. Commissioner has wrongly sanctioned the refund without the assessment being challenged or reviewed. It is his further submission that although the shipping bills mention th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gher than 62% then no refund would have arisen as a consequence. Thus, it can be said that the assessment was made provisionally by the assessing officer, although the word "provisionally assessed" was not mentioned on the face of the shipping bill. On the other hand, if the assessment is taken to be final, the calculation of the duty is certainly wrong because the rate of duty on iron ore with Fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
