9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was pending before any of the authorities including CESTAT. There is also no whisper about intimating the Revenue about the pendency of any litigation before any fora in this regard. It was nearly after ten years that the judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s. Enterprises International Ltd. [ 2017 (4) TMI 80 - SC ORDER] was passed, which the appellant is trying to take advantage of by claiming that its application for refund is within one year from the date of the above judgement. This is clearly an afterthought, which cannot be accepted, since the scope of Section 27 ibid. is limited to the claimant who pursues by means of litigation before higher authorities and hence, any third person cannot derive any benefit out of the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dication / assessment of the Bills-of-Entry and consequential release of the goods. Hence, the CVD was collected after adjudication along with BCD. While remitting the CVD plus BCD, the appellant did not mention that the remittance was made under protest . The appellant filed refund claim for the above CVD vide application dated 03.08.2017, after the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port-Exports) v. M/s. Enterprises International Ltd. dated 05.08.2016 wherein the Hon ble Court had declined to interfere with the order impugned therein. The above application for refund was filed within one year from the date of receipt of the order of the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s. Enterprises Internation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower authorities are non-speaking orders, for which reason the Learned Advocate would request for remand of the case back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication. 7. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the documents placed on record as well as the judgements/orders cited during the course of arguments. 8. There is no dispute that after adjudication / assessment, the appellant did remit the CVD plus BCD and the same was not under protest and, as could be seen from the pleadings as well as the orders of both the lower authorities, the said adjudication / assessment had reached finality for the same reason. This happened perhaps in the year 2008 and since then, there is nothing availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
