TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia should alone be the basis for payment of custom duty - demand set aside - appeal allowed. Whether the appellant is required to pay the National Calamity Contingent duty (NCCD) and cess thereon even though they have utilised advance licence for the import? - Held that: - the Hon High Court of Gauhati in the case of CCE, Dibrugadh Vs Prag Bosimi synthetics ltd., [2013 (11) TMI 487 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] has answered this issue in the affirmative against the appellant and held that the general exemption has absolutely no reference to NCC duty which is levied as a surcharge under the provisions of the Finance Act, 2001 - the impugned order, rejecting the refund claim of ₹ 4,23,30,927.46/- does not call for any interference - appeal d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Calamity Contingent Duty(DCCD) and education cess on import under Advance License and DFIA. The appellant was constrained to pay the duty beyond the quantity which has been received in the shore tanks of their refinery and also paid of NCCD on utilisation of advance license. The said demand was also confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. The issue involved in the appeals are (1) whether quantity shown in the in Bill of Lading o the quantity actually received in the shore tanks should be the basis for payment of customs, duty. On the ground that the actual quantity received is less, the appellant has filed a refund claim of ₹ 12,27,52,950/- on the contention that the quantity received should be considered f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second issue, involving the requirement or liability to NCCD, we find that the Hon High Court of Gauhati in the case of CCE, Dibrugadh Vs Prag Bosimi synthetics ltd., reported in 2013 (295)ELT-682 (Gau) has answered this issue in the affirmative against the appellant. Although he judgment relates to excise matter, we find that the ratio laid therein is very much applicable to customs matter and also to the case at hand. This being so, that part of the impugned order, rejecting the refund claim of ₹ 4,23,30,927.46/- does not call for any interference. The appeal filed by the appellant in this case, to this extent is therefore, dismissed. Appeal No.C/795/2007 is disposed on the above grounds. 5. In appeal No.C/794/2007, only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
