9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. G. Chacko, Member (J) S/Shri B. Satish Sundar, Advocate and S. Krishnanandh, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri N. J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal by the assessee is against rejection or a claim for refund of duty of Rs. 4,03 683/-. They had paid Customs duty of Rs. 9,46,963/- on 50 pieces of "Electroplated Grinding Wheel" covered by Bill of entry No. 751710 dated 19-10-2004 and two invoices, one dated 11-10-2004 covering 30 pieces of 'Electroplated Grinding Wheel' and the other dated 21-9-2004 covering 20 pieces. The clearance of the goods was allowed through green channel without physical examination. Only 30 pieces of grinding wheel were available such clearance as 20 pieces had already been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has prayed for a direction for refund as a relief of equity on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. He has also claimed support from Tribunal's decision in Commissioner v. Kennametal Widia India Ltd., 2007 (213) E.L.T. 353 (Tri.-Bang.), wherein a refund of Customs duty was allowed on the ground of short-receipt of goods. The ld. SDR has submitted that the decision cited by the ld. counsel is on a different issue. He has also explained green channel facility thus : some major importers have been given the green channel clearance facility. It means clearance of goods is done without routine examination of the goods. They have to make a declaration in the declaration form at the time of filing of bill of entry. The appraiseme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have realized that the goods covered by invoice dated 21-9-2004. (20 pieces of grinding wheel) were not physically available and the same had been cleared under an earlier Bill of Entry on payment or duty. They ought to have applied to the Appraiser of Customs under Section 149 of the Customs Act for amendment of the relevant entries in Bill of Entry No. 751710 dated 10-10-2004, which would have eventually led to revision of the assessment resulting in refund of the excess duty paid by the assessee, Alternatively, the assessee could have challenged the order of assessment in a regular appeal. Neither of these was done. The assessment became final binding on the assessee. In the circumstances, the subsequent refund claim filed by the party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
