9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sq.M. At the time of assessment, the proper officer proposed for an enhancement of assessable value to USD 6 per Sq.M. on the basis of NIDB data. The appellant objected the enhancement and the goods were provisionally assessed and cleared on payment of duty on the declared value, execution of Bond and furnishing security by way of cash deposit for the differential duty. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 14,44,561/- being the declared duty was paid vide Challan No.2011379608 dated 17.04.2015. Even after payment of the declared duty, an amount of Rs. 1,22,392/- was figuring in the Icegate as duty to be paid. On enquiring with the Department, the appellant was informed that the amount so figured was a mistake and actually the same is part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said amount as security deposit/differential duty against Bill of Entry No.8888688/13.04.2015. Aggrieved by the rejection Order, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who in turn rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts, law and the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the finding in the impugned order is contrary to the findings of the Original Authority. The Original Authority in Para 5 of the Order-in-Original dated 30.08.2017 had categorically found that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted and retained by the Department without authority of law and is liable to be refunded to the appellant along with interest from the date of payment of the amount till the actual payment of refund. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Smruti Organics v. C.CEX, Pune - 2015 (330) ELT 583 (Tri. Mum.). * Binjrajkl Steel Tubes v. C.CX, Hydb. - 2007 (218) ELT 563 (Tri. Bang.). * Omjai Bhavani Silk Mills v. CCE, Hydb. - 2009 (243) ELT 560 (Tri. Bang.) * Amidhara Texturising v. CCE, Surat - 2012 (278) ELT 257 (Tri. Ahmd.). * HMM Ltd. v. Administrator, Bangalore City Corp. - 1997 (91) ELT 27 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the Learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bill of Entry but the same has also not been considered. Further, both the authorities have not given any valid reason for retaining the said amount. Further, the orders passed by both the authorities are silent with regard to appropriation of the said amount. The officers of the Department are duty bound to explain as to under which Head, the said amount has been allocated but no reason, whatsoever, has been given in both the orders as to the collection, appropriation, utilization of the amount collected from the appellant. Further, the appellant has relied upon various decisions cited supra wherein it has been consistently held by the Tribunal that duty collected without authority of law cannot be retained by the Government and the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
