TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong & Ors. [1987 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] clearly held that a taxing authority has no authority to retain the money collected without the authority of law and, as such, is liable to refund the same. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/585/2007 - Final Order No. 21949 / 2017 - Dated:- 6-9-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Mr. K. S. Ravi Shankar, Advocate Mr. Dakshinamurthy, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Parsivamurthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok K. Arya M/s. TTK Prestige Pvt. Ltd. is in appeal against Order-in-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods was unconditional under Notification No.10/2006 dated 1.3.2006 (Sl. No.14 under) under which nil rate was prescribed. Therefore, Assessing Officer was under a legal duty not to collect CVD on imported goods and having collected the same without authority of law, they should refund the same. (iii) In support, he cites the following decisions: * Aman Medical Products Ltd. vs. CC: 2010 (250) ELT 30 (Del.) * Aditya Birla Nuvo Limitd vs. CC: 2008 (222) ELT 249 (Tri.-Bang.) * Indian Institute of Science vs. CC (A): 2015 (320) ELT 577 (Tri.-Bang.) 5. The learned DR for the Revenue pleads as under: (i) The refund claim is not maintainable without order of assessment having been challenged or modified in appeal or rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority to retain the money collected without the authority of law and, as such, is liable to refund the same. 6.3 The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi: 2010 (250) E.L.T. 30 (Del.), held that non-filing of appeal against assessed Bill of Entry, when there is no dispute between import and Revenue at the time of payment of duty will not deprive importer of his right to file refund claim. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in this case has observed as under: 3. Before we proceed to decide the issue, it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant part of the relevant provision, namely, Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is as under : 27. Claim for refund of duty. - (1) Any person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessarily pursuant to an order of assessment but can also be borne by him . Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 27 are clearly in the alternative as the expression or is found in between clauses (i) and (ii). The object of Section 27(i)(ii) is to cover those classes of case where the duty is paid by a person without an order of assessment, i.e. in a case like the present where the assessee pays the duty in ignorance of a notification which allows him payment of concessional rate of duty merely after filing a Bill of Entry. In fact, such a case is the present case in which there is no assessment order for being challenged in the appeal which is passed under Section 27(1)(i) of the Act because there is no contest or lis and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
