TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Ltd. Vs. CC (Prev.) [2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and CC Vs. M/s. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Held that:- In the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. (2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT), the High Court of Delhi has held that for claiming benefit of a Notification to which the appellant was entitled, the original assessment need not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be reiterated that classification under 72.21 was claimed by the appellant itself and Customs found the said classification to be correct and accordingly assessed the Bill of Entry. In these circumstances, when Notification No.56/2008-Cus does not cover the heading 72.21 and the issue of classification of goods (specially in the absence thereof) cannot be undertaken while deciding the refund appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sub-heading 72210090. The Customs assessed the goods accepting the classification claimed by the appellant. The goods were then cleared on 09.05.2008. The appellant filed a refund claim on 19.05.2008 on the ground that they were entitled to the benefit under Notification No.56/2008-Cus, dated 29.04.2008, which was rejected by the primary adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he original assessment need not be challenged when higher duty was paid by inadvertence without taking benefit of Notification due to ignorance. We, however, notice that the issue here involves classification because Notification No.56/2008-Cus, dated 29.04.2008 is admittedly not applicable to goods classified under CTH 72139990. In these circumstances, the appellants contention that it was entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
