9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.1.2015 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the appeals of the appellants on the ground that the appellants cannot claim the refund directly without challenging the assessment order in view of the Apex Court decision in M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs: 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). 3. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the trading of various consumer products. In the course of their business, they filed 9 Bills of Entry for clearances of the goods namely "Enamel Ware" classifiable under CETH 7323 9490 and Aluminium Non-stick cook wares under CTH 7615 1021 of the Central Excise Tariff. All the goods were cleared on payment of merit rate of duty after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the assessment on the ground that excess duty paid by them needs to be refunded as there is no provision to collect the duty which were paid by oversight. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 6.1.2015 rejected all the five appeals relying upon the decision on M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. on the ground that the appeals are not maintainable as they have to challenge the assessments made in the Bills of Entry. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed present five appeals before this Tribunal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law because the respondent ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi High Court has been subsequently followed by Delhi High Court in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. vs. UOI: 2016 (336) ELT 446 (Del.). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bharath Electronics Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs wherein this Tribunal vide Final Order No.21209/2016 dated 21.11.2016 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by way of remand by holding that there is no requirement for re-assessment under Section 149. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR strongly defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellants have not challenged the assessment order and consequently are not entitled to refund. He further submitted that the Bill of Entry cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the point of import and consequently, had to pay customs duties at merit rates. Subsequently, the formalities stand complied with and necessary certificates have been obtained from the jurisdictional central excise authorities and submitted before the customs for claiming the refund. However, they do not appear to have been considered. On the other hand the customs authorities, have proceeded to reject the refunds under Section 149 by taking the view that reassessments are not permissible. 5.2 We are of the view that the substantial benefit cannot be denied to the assessee. Subsequent to the dates of import, all the procedural requirements have been satisfied. Since the requirement of re-assessment has been done away with by amending Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
