Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Blue Star Ltd. Versus C.C., Chennai

2016 (5) TMI 441 - CESTAT 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 Authority to consider the issue in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act, which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eous, 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) ORDER M/s. Blue Star Limited, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, had .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 authority. Let that authority consider the Tribunals larger Bench decision ibid as a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Adjudicating authority had consequently held that the imported items are to .....

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 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 department. 4. Being aggrieved with this order, the present appeal has been file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 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 impugned goods are classifiable without invoking notification 2/2006, that 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

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version