9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued to the appellant alleging that as the appellant has not challenged the assessment of Bills of Entry in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) [ 2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT] , therefore, the refund claim is not maintainable without challenging of the assessment of Bill of Entry and in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV [ 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] , it is found that for both the cases, the period involved is prior to self assessment regime i.e. prior to 08.04.2011. Therefore, the decisions of the said cases are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, both are disposed off by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a Bill of Entry under EDI System for payment of Customs duty on import of Anhydrous Ammonia. Consequent upon approval of the self-assessment of the Bill of Entry under Risk Management System and upon payment of Customs duty, the clearance of such goods was allowed for home consumption. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim application stating that the import of Anhydrous Ammonia of Malaysian Origin is liable to preferential rate of Basic Customs Duty @ 2% under Notification No.53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011 as amended, whereas they have paid duty @ 5% on such goods, which is refundable to them. 2.1 The show-cause notices were issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia and Malysia) Rules, 2011. Therefore, the refund claims are not maintainable. 2.3 The said orders were challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the orders of the adjudicating authority rejecting refund claims. 2.4 Against the said orders, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant produced the Certificate of Origin issued by the manufacturer of the goods and it is not disputed by the Department that the said Certificate is not genuine and the appellant has complied with the substantial condition of the Notification. Therefore, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to the appellant. He further submits that the subsequent import from the same sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry of Origin issued by the Malysia Chamber of Commerce. In that circumstances, the appellant has not complied with the condition of Notification. Furthermore, he submits that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV reported in 2019 (368) ELT 216 (S.C.) for challenging the adjudication order in respect of assessment of Bill of Entry, the refund claim cannot be entertained. 6. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 7. We find that initially, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that as the appellant has not challenged the assessment of Bills of Entry in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
