9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e imperative to first finalize the assessment undertaken at the time of import. The decision on merits of the refund claim filed shall arise only thereafter once a speaking order in terms of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act has been issued finalising the assessment of the imported goods. In case the department is not able to lay its hands on the subject documents evidencing payment of duty under protest, the department is directed for the re-construction of the files and on the basis of documents filed by the appellant alongwith the subject refund claims filed by the importer/appellant. The orders passed by of the lower authorities set aside and the matter remanded to the assessing group to decide on the protest lodged, by the importer at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and the assessment therefore cannot be considered as final. We note that the learned adjudicating authority mentions at para 5 of the order that, An office note dated 23.4.2019 was issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Group- 3 asking for reassessment order for the subject refund. 4. Thereafter, however in para 7 of the said order the learned adjudicating authority observed as under: 7. In response to the Office Note dated 23.04.2019, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Apprising Group-3 vide their office note dated 13.05.2019 intimated that: (i) All the Eighteen (18) Bills of Entry belong to the now abolished Gr. 7, it could not be ascertained whether the importer had paid the duty under protest or not. (ii) EDI data i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in respect of the said Bills of Entry clearly pointing out that the said goods at the time of import were assessed in Group 7H/B and that they had paid duty under protest at the time of release of the goods from Customs. They had also enclosed with this application, the relevant protest letters filed by the appellant, as also form part of the appeal papers. In the same vein the appellant has placed separate letters of protest as per the following table; Date For B/E No.s. Date 12.10.2009 491480 dated 29.08.2009 491481 dated 29.08.2009 12.10.2009 493740 dated 09.09.2009 495896 dated 22.09.2009 13.10.2009 491482 dated 29.08.2009 491491 dated 29.08.2009 498077 dated 06.10.2009 498079 dated 06.10.2009 498209 dated 07.10.2009 13.10.2009 495895 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration. Likewise in the case of Venkateshwara Synthetics Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2001 (131) ELT 114 T , it was held that the protest gets vacated with the finalization of RT-12 assessment i.e. to point out that only by way of an assessment process can it be considered that the protest is neutralized or vacated. A decision on a refund claim is not the appropriate way and cannot be considered a legal way forward, of taking a call on the protest lodged by the importer and it needs to be first separately squared up before taking a decision on the refund claim filed by the assessee. Further, in the case of A.P Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Guntur 2002 (104) ECR 1103 T , it was observed that a protest for any purpose, is a protest for all purposes and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
