9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ident from the bill of entry for home consumption. However, though the petitioner claimed the benefit under notification no.012/2012 pertaining to the countervailing duty, the concerned assistant commissioner at the initial stage declined to allow the exemption under notification no.012/2012. The petitioner paid all the charges and duties as demanded for the release of the goods before preferring an appeal. In the relevant appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, the reliefs claimed were as follows: "a. The assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs in respect of Bill of Entry No.4965515 dated 21st March, 2014 be set aside. b. Exemption claimed by the appellant on the imported goods be allowed under notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee was a part of the spinal fluid manometer and "neither an accessory nor a complete instrument." It was also held that there was no ambiguity regarding the classification of the goods and, "so the exemption benefit under notification no 12/2012[serial no309(i)] should be granted." In the final paragraph before the ordering portion of the appellate order, it was held that in the absence of any cogent grounds for denial of the benefit claimed under notification no.12 of 2012, the order of assessment was not sustainable in such regard. However, the following order was passed by the appellate authority on August 5, 2014: "The assessment order under bill of entry 4965515 dt 21.03.2014 is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be imposed. It is not the Customs' case that the exemption under notification no.21 of 2012 was not initially allowed. It is also not the Customs' case that any appeal was preferred by the department against the initial or tentative assessment made as reflected in the assessed bill of entry in such regard. Once the appellate order dealt with only the refusal to grant the exemption under notification no.12 of 2012 and allowed the appeal with the affirmative finding that the exemption demanded had been wrongfully denied, the only exercise left was to refund such amount and not seek to revisit the matter pertaining to the exemption granted under notification no.21 of 2012. The order in original dated May 17, 2016 noticed that an appeal had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
