9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-057-16-17 dated 31.08.2016. 2. The relevant facts that arises for consideration are the appellant herein filed Shipping Bills for export of Iron Ore declaring the value as USD 165 PDMT FOB to M/s Sin-Tang Development Pvt. Ltd, China. Appellant produced various agreements before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original No.266/2012 dated 31.05.2012. Subsequently, the Department took up for finalization of Shipping Bills and finalized the assessment by adopting the contracted unit price of US $ 165 PDMT FOB and ordered for refund of excess duty paid by the appellant (Order-in-Original No.299/2014 dated 24.07.2014) appellant was aggrieved by such an order and preferred an appeal before the First A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) has set aside the Order-in-Order dated 31.05.2012, hence the action of the adjudicating authority to finalise the Shipping Bills again vide Order-in-Original dated 24.07.2014 by issuing another show cause notice is incorrect. It is his submission provisions of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 are very clear and interest liability arises from date bills of entry were finalised. 4. Ld. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich would mean that the Revenue has accepted the value declared by the appellant in the Shipping Bills as filed. The adjudicating authority cannot again assess the said Shipping Bills, as there are no provisions to do so It is also surprising that once the re-determined the value of Shipping Bills was set aside it would mean the provisional assessment vide Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2012 was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
