9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of refund. Appeal No.C/260/2008 is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 2/2007(V)(D) CH, dated 30.11.2007 upholding the contentions of SAIL that they are not liable to pay any differential duty and the amounts of duty paid is to be refunded back to them. 2. In order to appreciate the correct facts of the case, it is necessary to reproduce the case in appeal No. C/260/2008: (a) The GOI, Dept of Revenue, CBEC, New Delhi issued an Adhoc exemption Order NO. 12/4.2.1984 for import of 27,440 MT of Tin Mill Black Plate Coils (TMBP coils) at a concessional rate of duty of 20% Adv. The Iron & Steel Controller, being the allotting authority for TMBP coils vide his distribution order dated 17/4/1984 allotted the above said quantity among ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T of TMBP coils were considered to be cleared at the Concessional rate in excess of quantity limit of 27,440 M.T authorized by the CBEC exemption order. (e) Later on the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam, confirmed the demand for Rs. 2,68,96,910/- being the duty short levied due to availing of the concessional rate of duty vide Order (Original) No. S9/28/84-85 Ap/C13/16/84-Ap dated 19/2/1992 . On an appeal made by the Respondents the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad Vide Order-in-Appeal No. 21/92(V) (Cus) dated 23/7/1992 confirmed the orders of Assistant Commissioner. On the directions of the Appellants the Respondents paid amount involved i.e. Rs. 2,68,96,910/- on 3/5/1993 (f) The respondents made an appeal to the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) and the records available, allowed the refund of Rs. 2,68,96,910/- paid by the Respondents in terms of earlier orders. (j) Aggrieved by the orders of Assistant Commissioner, the Appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. The Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals), Visakhapatnam vide Order-in-Appeal No. 2/2007 (V) (D)CH dated 30/11/2007 upheld the impugned order and rejected the Appeal. (k) On the order the Appellant filed the present Appeal on the ground that neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Authority have gone into the question of the quantity imported at concessional rate of duty at Calcutta and Mumbai Ports, hence the orders are required to be set aside. 3. The Asst. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when called for the records from Mumbai Customs House, the communication from Mumbai Customs House indicated that the records are not traceable. It is her submission that Tin Plate Company of India Limited (TCIL) has exceeded the quantum of imports permitted to them from Kolkata Port by 7066 MT and K.R. Steel Union Pvt. LTd. (KRSU) has also exceeded the quantum by 1143 MT which itself is indicative that the benefit of concessional rate of duty on adhoc exemption is misutilised. She submits that the impugned orders be set aside and duty liability on SAIL be confirmed. 5. Ld. Counsel appeared for the Respondent submits that the first appellate authority has, in the impugned order from paras 9 to 14 has discussed in details the various steps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SAIL (Through Vizag Port) 9,814 Tin Plate Company of India Limited (TCIL) through Kolkata Port 11,536 M/s K.R. Steel Union Pvt. Ltd. (KRSU) Through Bombay Port) 6,090 Total MT 27,440 9. Based upon the above said revised order, SAIL cleared additional 8279. 59 MT imported through Vizag Port. This quantity was sought to be disputed by Customs Department and differential duty was sought to be Appeal Numbers C/2602008 demanded from SAIL, who succeeded before first appellate authority in their appeal. For record sake, we find that Iron & Steel Controller had revised the allocations in respect of all the three importers from various Ports which can be noticed from the above and the final outcome of the initial orders and the imports mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest after 3 months from the date of filing of the refund claim, we find that the said refund claim is correct and needs to be accepted as the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited has settled the law which holds that interest has to be paid to a refund seeker if the refund is not sanctioned within 3 months from the date of filing of the said claim. Accordingly, in appeal No. C/540/2010, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by directing the lower authorities to grant interest on appropriate rate to SAIL in accordance with the law as settled by Hon'ble ApexCourt in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. 12. In view of the foregoing, Revenue's appeal stands rejected and assessee appeal stands allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
