TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he activity of ship breaking and they had filed 11 Bills of Entries in respect of ships imported for breaking and this issue has been the subject matter of the appeal and has seen several rounds of litigation with regard to assessment of the ships because of the dispute relating to duty liability on the fuel contained in the tanks and bunkers etc. The chronological history of the case is reproduced below which shows amount of litigation and how the matter has moved back and forth :- (1) 2/92 to 9/96 Imported 11 ships for breaking and on provisional assessment paid the customs duties; (2) Mar. 1999 Final assessment orders passed demanding additional duty of Rs. 16,21,583/-; (3) Oct. 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited of Rs. 8,52,103/-; (18) Oct. 2004 SLP filed in Supreme Court; (19) Oct. 2004 As per the direction of the Department deposited of Rs. 4,00,451/- (20) Nov. 2004 As per the direction of the Department balance amount of Rs. 3,69,029/- deposited and thereby completed the entire said demand of Rs. 16,21,583/-, pending SLP in Supreme Court; (21) July, 2005 Supreme Court ordered that in case, the said amount is deposited, the appeals before the Tribunal would stand restored and to be decided on merits; (22) Dec. 2005 Tribunal set aside the orders by way of remand to Commr. (A) vide order dtd. 13-12-2005; (23) Jan. 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, this amount is nothing but pre deposit and should have been refunded to them from the date of order of the Tribunal on 12-3-2006. However, Assistant Commissioner passed an order making final assessment under Section 18(2) of the Act and issued Order in Original dated 24-4-2006, wherein he found that the appellant had paid excess duty of Rs. 6,99,747/- for which he ordered them to file refund claim under Section 27 of the Act, which has been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. He submits that the full amount was liable to be refunded since the Tribunal had remanded the matter on 13-12-2005 to the Original Adjudicating Authority and should have been refunded by 12-3-2006. The Assistant Commissioner passed the detaile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
