9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Larger Bench in the reference made by the Bangalore Bench in the case of Faxtel Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. C.C. Cochin - 2003 (56) R.L.T. 652 (CECAT-Ban.). The learned Chartered Accountant for the appellants informs that the Larger Bench has not yet decided the reference. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that on this issue there are two decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment in the Bill of Entry (B/E) which classified the impugned goods under heading 85.48. This is a case, where assessment has been done on the B/E without issuing a Show Cause Notice to the appellants, without hearing them and without passing an appealable adjudication order. In the case of CCE., Kanpur V/s Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (120) ELT 285 (S.C), the Apex Court has ruled that if no ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een issued. The appellants have paid duty in pursuance of an order of an assessment on the B/E. They have subsequently filed a refund claim within the time limit prescribed under Section 27. In a similar case, the Apex Court has ruled vide Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. C.C. (Appeals), Chennai- 2002 (143) ELT 482 (S.C.) to the effect that re-classification/re-assessment can be sought along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund claim under Section 27 and seek a reassessment. To deny an assessee the option to seek reassessment through a refund claim under Section 27, where no appealable order has been passed while assessing the B/E, would render Section 27 redundant and would run counter to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Kanataka Power (Supra). 6. No doubt, appeals against any decision or order inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
