TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase 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 appraising refund section could not have reopened the assessment initially made and demanded the additional duty in derogation of notification no.12 of 2012 despite the same having been allowed earlier. Refund to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er notification No.12/2012 Sl. No.309(I). c. Enhanced duty of ₹ 901878/- on account of denial of exemption be set aside and said amount be paid by the appellant under protest be refunded along with interest. The appellate order of August 5, 2014 discussed the matter and noticed that before final assessment, the assessing authority had certain queries which were responded to by the assessee by claiming, inter alia, the benefit under notification no.12/2012 [(serial no.309(i)]. Since the appeal pertained to the refund of the sum of ₹ 9,01,878/-, which was the aggregate of all the duty obtained in derogation of notification no.12/2012, the appellate authority discussed only such aspect of the matter and noted, inter alia, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. Since the scope of the appeal was the denial of the benefit of exemption under notification no.12 of 2012 dated March 17, 2012, the appellate order does not reveal any discussion beyond such aspect of the assessed bill of entry. In such circumstances, the real purport of the appellate order is that the demand for duty made in derogation of notification no.12 of 2012 was incorrect. To give effect to such appellate order, the consequential relief that the petitioner was entitled to was the refund of the duty obtained from the petitioner by not giving the petitioner the benefit under the relevant notification. There may not be any serious dispute that the principal amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original dated May 17, 2016 noticed that an appeal had been preferred against the order of August 5, 2014 before the Tribunal, but the stay petition had been dismissed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. In view of such position and the appellate order of August 5, 2014 governing the field, the appraising refund section could not have reopened the assessment initially made and demanded the additional duty in derogation of notification no.12 of 2012 despite the same having been allowed earlier. WP No.502 of 2016 is allowed by setting aside the order impugned dated May 17, 2016 insofar as it imposes a duty of ₹ 6,01,605.61 on the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner will be refunded the appropriate amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
