9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial)] 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 30/2008 V CH, dated 20.10.2008. 2. None appeared on behalf of appellant nor there is any request for adjournment. Since the appeal is of 2009, the same is take up for disposal, even in the absence of any representation. 3. Heard Ld. DR and perused the records. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 4. On perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appellate authority allowed the appeal by Order-in- Appeal dated 31.05.2006 and held that the value of insurance paid and the classification of the goods are to be held under 8439 and not 7326, with consequential relief, remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for finalising and for consideration of doctrine of unjust enrichment. The said Order-in-Appeal is accepted and no appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visional assessments. They referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Hindalco Industries [2008(89) RLT 283]. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by Ld. DR, who reiterated the findings of the first appellate authority and perusal of records, it is undisputed that finalisation of provisional assessment of bills of entry took place prior to 13.07.2006 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. [2003(158) ELT 135 (Bombay), we find that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has considered all these judgments and subsequently held in favour of the respondents therein i.e. Hindalco Industries. The same view has also been taken by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited [2009(235) ELT 629 (Tri.- LB)] and considered all the judgments related to the issue and held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
