9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Under bill of entry dated 01.05.2015, the petitioner had imported 200 sheets of 1.9 mm clear float glass from China. The bill of entry was processed by the Customs Authority and the customs duty and the additional duties totaling to Rs. 6,93,756/ was demanded which the petitioner paid. From the bill of entry processed by the Customs Department, copy of which is produced at Annexure:A to the petition, it can be seen that at that stage the demand towards antidumping duty was nil. However, it appears that despite the petitioner paying the custom and additional duties as assessed by the Customs Department, the goods were not cleared. The authorities raised a further demand of Rs. 3,72,790/ by way of antidumping duty. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . With reference to your refund it is to inform that whatever has been assessed has been paid by you. As per the law nothing is refundable unless the duty is requantified. Therefore you have been advised to either get the B/Es reassessed with desired notification/Circular benefit or file an appeal against B/E with Commissioner (Appeal) for redetermination of duty. 3. Please note refund Section does not have authority to suomoto decide the matter whether notification/Circular benefits is available or otherwise. 4. In view of the above, refund application dated 03.08.2015 alongwith all relevant documents returned herewith as the refund is pre mature. Encl: As above" 5. After failing to get positive response from the department, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Firstly, we do not think, a separate invoice under which the petitioner was forced to pay Rs. 3,79,790/, can be stated to be an order of assessment of bill of entry. The question of appealing against said order therefore, does not arise. Even if we treat this calculation as an order of the Deputy Commissioner, nothing prevents us from examining the legality of such an order and in facts of the present case, when we find that collection was totally illegal, from striking it down. When a duty is collected wholly without authority of law and therefore, without jurisdiction, the question of alternative remedy becomes insignificant, to suggest that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.08.2015 is appealable is not quite corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
