9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent ORDER [Order per: P.V. Subba Rao.] 1. This appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.05/2009 (G) (D) Cus, dated 11.05.2009. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. Heard learned departmental representative 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 @ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y this order and filed an appeal before the first appellate 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment being challenged or reviewed. It is his further submission that although the shipping bills mention the Fe content in iron ore as below 62% and the same has been reconfirmed by the chemical examiner's test report, the duty was paid at a higher rate of Rs. 300/MT by the exporters themselves and without any protest. Therefore, their assessment has become final and unless it has been ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is taken to be final, the calculation of the duty is certainly wrong because the rate of duty on iron ore with Fe content less than 62% was only Rs. 50/MT and not Rs. 300/MT. It was the responsibility of the assessing officer to correctly assess the export duty payable and he made a mistake. The customs officers are well within their powers to correct these mistakes under Sec.154 of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
