9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led refund on 25.07.2006 claiming that the impugned items do not attract RSP assessment in terms of Notification 13/02 NT CE. A.C (Refunds) rejected the claim first by a communication dated 3.08.06 on the ground that the assessment has to be first set aside on appeal and the issue did not lie with him. However, the appellants claim did not find favour with the adjudicating authority who in his order in original 5839/2007 dated 31.01.2007, had rejected the refund claim on the ground of jurisdiction and without going into the merits of the case. 2. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who vide Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 397/2007 dated 27/09/2007, after following the Tribunals ruling in the case of M/s. Mecon Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal's order, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) had, in his order in original 13471/2010 dated 10.11.2010, observed that the appellant had paid the assessed duty amount and had cleared the goods. As per serial no. 68 of Notification No.2/2006 (CE) dated 01/03/2006, only refrigerators were covered under heading 8418 and not the imported item viz. water dispenser. The Adjudicating authority had consequently held that the imported items are to be assessed on assessable value for the purpose of calculation of CVD and held that there was an excess payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 4,21,607/-, which was refundable to the appellants. The Adjudicating Authority had further held that the appellant had filed a Chartered Accounta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the said order is patently erroneous and deserves to be set aside; that the original authority had categorically stated that the impugned goods are classifiable without invoking notification 2/2006, that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is an ex-parte order and reiterated their other grounds and prayed for allowing their appeal. 5. On the other hand, the revenue was represented by Shri.K.P.Muralidharan, AC (AR), who reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and further contended that the appellants have not challenged the assessment. Without challenging the assessment, the claim of refund cannot be sustained. 6. Heard both sides in the matter and perused the records. This is a case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
