Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 441 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (5) TMI 441 - CESTAT CHENNAI - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 573 (Tri. - Chennai) - Refund claim - Import of water dispensers - Adjudicating authority in his order in original, had clearly stated that the appellant had paid excess duty and the entry 8418 covered only refrigerators and not water dispensers is an unassailable finding . The Adjudicating Authority had passed a reasoned and speaking order and in the first order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in order, directed the Adjudicating Aut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it, that the classification arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority is erroneous, which has not been done in the instant case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Original Authority granting refund is restored. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. C/40050/2015 - Final Order No. 40700 / 2016 - Dated:- 3-5-2016 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri S. Krishnanandh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nds) 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-i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rieved with this order had filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide final order no.487/08 dated 16.5.2008, held that 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order directed the original authority to determine the admissibility or otherwise of the refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act. It was an open remand. I do not see any reason why it has to be disturbed inasmuch as it is open to both sides to present their respective contentions before the original authorit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s without saying that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the party. 3. Consequent upon the 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h most importantly was not passed on to their customers or any other person. The authority had sanctioned the refund amount. Being aggrieved with this order, the department had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), had stated that the appellant has not challenged the assessment. Without change in the assessment the question of refund does not arise and the sanction of refund was erroneous and had allowed the appeal filed by the dep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the said order this Tribunal in the previous round of litigation had passed an order upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals); that the adjudicating authority in the second round of litigation had passed a well considered order which was set aside without any proper reasoning ; that the refund was rightly granted to them and the reversal of the said order is patently erroneous and deserves to be set aside; that the original authority had categorically stated that the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version