TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared after the examination as per Section 17 of the said Act and at the time of examination the short landing of the goods had been noticed. Therefore, at the material time itself, the assessment shows that duty payable is Rs. 21,972/- as against the duty deposited of Rs. 45, 982/- and, accordingly, the excess duty paid became refundable - C/14/2010 - 858/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 25-11-2011 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 24,010/-. The said refund claim was rejected by the concerned AC, Refund on the ground that the respondents did not seek the reassessment of the relevant Bill of Entry by relying on the ratio of the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Flock India [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.)] and M/s. Priya Blue Industries [2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)]. 3. Being aggrieved with the said o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of goods for home consumption under Section 47 of Customs Act, 1962. The fact that only two packages were cleared against the Bill of Entry after examination and receiving reports to that effect from the concerned agencies, indicates that the assessment under Section 47 was only in respect of two packages and not in respect of three packages for which the Bill of Entry was filed and duty was pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods were cleared after the examination as per Section 17 of the said Act and at the time of examination the short landing of the goods had been noticed. Therefore, at the material time itself, the assessment shows that duty payable is Rs. 21,972/- as against the duty deposited of Rs. 45, 982/- and, accordingly, the excess duty paid became refundable. What further re-assessment is called for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of payment of duty. The same was paid accepting Import of three packages, whereas only two packages arrived. It is simple case of payment of duty required to be deposited by an importer. In the absence of lis between the respondents and the Revenue, non challenge of bill of entry will not be fatal to the respondents claim of refund of excess deposit. Accordingly, I find no merit in the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
