9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... variation clause, therefore the assessment of the bills of entry at the time of clearance of goods are deemed to be provisional and they were required to be assessed finally when the respondent applied for reassessment of the bills of entry. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, the same is upheld. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Ashwini Kr. Choudhury, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri Pramod Kr. Rai, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER The facts of the case are that the respondent entered into a contract/LOA with M/s. Hyosung Corporation, Korea for import of Transformer and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2.1. The respondent was asked to provide documentary evidences, which were submitted by the respondent, but the ld. adjudicating authority rejected the request for reassessment of bills of entry holding that it cannot be revised as the assessment of bills of entries were final and also observed that it could not be reopened without challenging the assessment of bills of entry. 3. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who vide the impugned order has ordered for reassessment of the bills of entry and directed the ld. adjudicating authority to reassess the impugned bills of entry. 4. Against the said order, Revenue is before us. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision of the prices :- (a) CCE, Hyderabad v. R. M. Cylinders (P) Ltd. M/s Hyderabad Cylinders (P) Ltd. [Final Order No 1933 1934/2005 dated 22-11-2005, 2006 (198) E.L.T. 45 (T)]. (b) M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad [Final Order No. 324 325/2006 dated 15-2-2006, 2006 (199) E.L.T. 155 (T)] The various case laws cited by the appellants are relevant. It is pertinent to note that when there is upward revision, the Respondent has to pay the differential duty to the Government. As regards the question of unjust enrichment, the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly given a finding that even though the Respondents pay high duty, the actual bill is settled only on the correct price finalized. In other words, when there is down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
