9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the assessee to take the benefit of the Notification which is more beneficial to the assessee. Further, in this case, the respondent had initially filed an application u/s 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for amendment in the Bill-of-Entry which was pending before the ld. adjudicating authority. Thereafter, the respondent filed their refund claim. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd.[ 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] is applicable to the facts of this case as before filing the refund claim, the respondent had sought amendment in the Bill-of-Entry. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is upheld - In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the benefit of Notification No. 93/2017-Cus. dated 21.12.2017 and allowed the refund claim. Against the said order, the Revenue is before us. 4. The Ld. Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue appeared and submitted that, in this case, the respondent has not challenged the assessment of the Bill-of-Entry; therefore, their refund claim is not maintainable in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV [2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.)]. 4.1 On merits, it is his contention that there are two Notifications applicable to the goods imported by the respondent and the Notification which is more beneficial to the Revenue has to be applied to the facts of this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .20 as well as under Sl No.20A during the period in question. c. The importer is allowed to choose the more beneficial provision and cannot be forced to opt for / follow the non-beneficial provision. d. Since Notification No.50/2017 Cus dated 30.6.2017 specifies the taxability per se (Effective Rate) for Pisum Sativum at SI No.20 and Sl. No.20A and there are no conditions attached to seek assessment under of NIL rated BCD, the case law of Dilip Kumar relied upon by the Revenue, cannot be applied in case of these importers. e. Therefore, the two appellants are eligible to claim the refund. f. The Commissioner (Appeals) while sanctioning the refunds in case of 5 importers (Respondents herein), has followed the applicable case law during that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
