TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Original No. 246/98 dated 8.10.1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, SVB was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai vide Order-in-Appeal No. 1315/98. The respondents had filed an appeal before CESTAT and the case was remanded for de novo adjudication. The de novo adjudication order No. 1242/2003 dated 19.11.2003 issued by Deputy Commissioner, SVB held that the transaction values declared in the invoices for imported components in SKD condition may be accepted under Rules 4(3)(a) read with Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules, 1998. Thereafter, another case of review of Order-in-Original No. 1242/2003 dated 19.11.2003 taken up by SVB Chennai leading to issuance of Order-in-Original No. 5776/2007 dt. 24/29.01.2007 wherein the de novo order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent herein and after obtaining para-wise comments from the Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that the decision and communication of rejection of refund claim is not correct and while coming to such a conclusion allowed the appeal of the respondent with consequential relief. Revenue is aggrieved by such an order and they are before Tribunal. 3. The learned SDR would submit that the learned Commissioner (A) has erred in passing an order of refund claim without considering the provisions of Section 18(2)(a) of Customs Act, 1962. It is her submission that the provisions of Section 27, Explanation 2 of Customs Act would straightaway indicate that even in case of provisional assessments, refund claim is required to be file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra). He would also draw my attention to the Chennai Bench decision in the case of CC, Chennai v. Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (208) ELT 439 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein relying upon the decision of the MICO (supra) in an identical issue, refund was sanctioned. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is whether the Commissioner (A) was correct in setting aside the impugned order which rejected the refund claim only on the ground of time bar. The findings of the learned Commissioner (A) are as under: 7. I find that the disputed amount for which refund claim has been preferred by the appellant is not Customs Duty but it is extra duty deposit. Thus, this amount cannot be equ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnished enormous evidence to show that the extra duty deposit has not been passed on to the buyers of the goods. I find that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision rendered in the case of MICO (supra). 5.2 I also find that the Chennai Bench was considering an identical situation as regards extra duty deposit made by the appellants in the case of CC v. Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), followed the ratio as laid down by the Division Bench in the case of MICO (supra). 5.3 Be that as it may, I also find that the respondent herein was always insisting upon the refund of the extra amount paid by them as early as 15.7.2004. There is nothing on record to show that this communication dated 30.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
