9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : R BHAGYA DEVI This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.192/2013 dated 27.11.2013. 2. The appellant, M/s. Kairali Granites, filed Bill of Entry No.243355 dated 8.4.2009 for clearance of marble slabs from Srilanka without claiming the benefit of Notification under the Indo-Srilanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) as per Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for reassessment was not forwarded to the proper officer but meanwhile vide Order-in-Original No.27/2009 dated 21.07.2009 refund claim was rejected by stating that the claim is not maintainable when the assessment has not been challenged. Only after intervention of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the speaking order on merits was issued. There is no dispute that the goods have been imported fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had requested for reassessment within a month's time though simultaneously filed a refund claim. The claim was rejected only on the ground that Bill of Entry was not reassessed and on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, a speaking order was issued for denial of the benefit of the Notification. There is no dispute that the goods have been imported from Srilanka and the appellant has placed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation were being granted benefit of the notification previous to the imports in issue and also subsequent to the imports in question. In other words, both the parties were aware of the said notifications. If the Petitioner on account of an inadvertent error chose not to apply for the benefit, would that result in denial of the benefit. In our opinion that by itself would not be answer as a duty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
