Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 644 - HC - CustomsRejection of refund claim - CESTAT has concurrently held that the price was provisional and this fact was known to the Department at the time of filing the bills of entry and accordingly, dismissed the appeal - HELD THAT:- It is settled that CESTAT is the last fact finding Authority. Both the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and CESTAT have concurrently recorded a finding that the price of USD 715 was provisional and it was within the knowledge of the Department. It is also not in dispute that the import duty has been paid on the import of material computed at USD 715 and after rectification of bills of entry, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs has ordered the refund. The first substantial question of law is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in holding that the price was provisional. Answer to the said question must be in the affirmative because the finding of the fact recorded by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is based on the finding of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The second substantial question of law is whether Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to produce additional evidence - Rule 5(1)(b) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, permits an assessee to produce the evidence where he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the authority. Therefore, answer to this question also must be in affirmative. Appeal dismissed.
|