9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act, 1962. In the said case, there was no assessment order as duty was paid under protest which implies there was a dispute - In the appellant’s case, there is no dispute and duty was paid under mistake. A perusal of the Certificate of Origin filed by the appellants in page 133 of the appeal book clearly certifies that the goods were produced in the Republic of Korea and they comply with the origin requirements specified for these goods in the Korea - India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. It is also noticed that the said Country of Origin has been issued on 24.02.2014 by the Director, Korea Chamber of Commerce & Industry. Further the goods have been loaded at Inchon Port as per Bill of Lading dt. 20.02.2014 - the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not in force at the time of assessment. Lower appellate authority however took the view that the notification in force, namely No.54/2013-Cus. dt. 31.12.2013 is meant for import from Republic of Korea under PTA between India and Korea Rules, 2009; that Bill of Entry was assessed by extending Notification No.12/2012 Sl.No.231 which is a general exemption and not under Notification No.152/2009-Cus. as stated by the appellant. Lower appellate authority was of the opinion that the Notification No.54/2013-Cus. claimed by the appellant is a conditional one and the verification of Country of Origin (COO) has to be done physically with respect to the goods; however as the goods have been cleared, the compliance of condition of notification canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC)] which was decided on 17.9.2004; i.e. before Section 27 was amended. In the said case, there was no assessment order as duty was paid under protest which implies there was a dispute. In the appellant's case, there is no dispute and duty was paid under mistake. By processing the refund claim, there is no review of an adjudication order, as no dispute was adjudicated at the time of payment of duty. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- (1) 2014 (313) ELT 72 (Tri. Chennai) - Algendran Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai (2) 2017(352) ELT 245 (Tri. Bang. DB) BEL Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore (3) 2010(250) ELT 30 (Del) Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. CC, Delhi. (4) Chapter 14 of CBEC Customs Manual - It does not sti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of the department, Ld. A.R Shri B. Balamurugan supports the impugned order and reiterated the view taken by the lower appellate authority that verification has to be done physically with respect to the goods. 4.1 Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 4.2 We find merit in the argument of the Ld. Advocate that the ratio laid down in Priya Blue Industries (supra) will not apply to the amended provisions of Section 27 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case laws submitted by Ld. Advocate also support his arguments. In the event, we are of the considered opinion that in appellants need not have challenged the assessment to enable them to file the refund claim. 4.3 A perusal of the Certificate of Origin filed by the appellants i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
