9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uter controlled HTHP Yarn Dyeing Machine - Eco Bloc type" and filed Bills of Entry for clearance of the machines under EPCG scheme. The relevant notification restricted Basic Customs Duty (BCD) to 5% and exempted the goods from payment of CVD. However, it appears, the appellants executed a bond for over Rs. 1.00 crore and, against the same, the Bills of Entry were assessed to 5% BCD and clearance allowed against payment of such duty. The CVD at 16% [Tariff rate] was noted as 'duty saved' on the EPCG licence by the assessing authority. The CVD so noted as "saved" was estimated at over Rs. 34.00 lakhs. When the assessment was complete the exact amount of CVD 'saved' was determined at Rs. 27,41,265.76 on the licence, thereby making it obligato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce not extended. Against this communication, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter also took the view that reassessment of Bill of Entry was not permissible where the goods had al ready been cleared for home consumption and no documentary evidence supporting the claim for reassessment was shown to be in existence at the time of clearance. The appellate authority took the stand that the assessment of the Bill of Entry had become final for want of appeal by the assessee and, therefore, there was no question of reassessment. The present appeal is against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that it is not in dispute that the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the appellants does not seem to be on the point. However, another decision cited by the authorized representative of the company might be of aid to their claim for reassessment of the Bill of Entry. In the case of PPN Power Generating Co. P. Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 493 (Tri. - Chennai), the party had imported certain machine and cleared the same for home consumption, on payment of duty, under a Bill of Entry dated 21-12-2002. Later on, they came to know that they were not liable to pay duty by virtue of exemption under Customs Notification No. 80/70 dated 29-8-1970 and accordingly they filed a refund claim. The original authority and the first appellate authority rejected the claim on the ground of non-fulfilment of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) in the impugned order that the assessment in question was not appealed against and hence became final cannot be accepted vis-a-vis the limited claim of the appellants for deletion of EPCG-related endorsement from the Bill of Entry and the licence. These endorsements were, admittedly, part of the assessment. As we have already noted that the Assistant Commissioner is not a party to the assessment. In the circumstances, we are of the view that, for the ends of justice, the appellants' claim for reassessment should be considered on merits by the AC/DC of Customs concerned. Such an exercise, we find, would relieve the appellants of export obligation in a revenue-neutral situation. 5. In the result, the proceedings of the lower author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
