TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the refund claim was allowed on the ground that the goods imported by the respondents are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 35/79-Cus., dated 15-2-79. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents made import of rotor shaft and filed a bill of entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs duty. In the refund claim, the respondents claimed the benefit of Notification No. 35/79. The contention of the Revenue is that such assessment order was not challenged by the respondents, therefore, the refund claim is not maintainable. 7. On merit, the contention of the Revenue is that the goods were assessed under Heading 8463.00 of Customs Tariff and this heading is not covered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) = 2000 (40) RLT 131 (SC) is applicable to the customs cases. 11. We find that on merit, the goods were assessed under Tariff Heading 8463 by the Customs authorities and the respondents accepted this assessment and paid duty. This order was appealable order and respondents filed no appeal agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
