TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a speaking order by proper officer, which admittedly has not been done in this case, before addressing the issue, whether refund claim is maintainable, the matter should go back to the original authority, in the interest of justice, for passing of a detailed speaking order, indicating the reason/ground for rejection of the declared value. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. C/87932/17 - A/86900/2018 - Dated:- 30-5-2018 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Vinay Ansurkar, Advocate for appellant Ms Trupti Chavan, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against impugned order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. 2. Brief facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- and rejected the balance claimed amount of ₹ 14,58,343/- on the ground that the appellant did not file any appeal against the assessed bill of entry dated 23.12.2014. Being aggrieved, the appellant had filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was rejected vide the impugned order, in upholding the stand taken in the adjudication order. The operative portion of the impugned order are extracted herein below: 9.2. It is on record that appellant never filed any appeal against the above said decision of enhancing the value by the assessing officer in Bill of Entry No. 7787561 dated 23.12.2014. The appeal filed by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) was against adjudication order rejecting the assessable valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the specific request of the appellant regarding the speaking order in respect of enhancement of the declared value as per bill of entry No. 7787561 dated 23.12.2014 has so far not been considered, the matter should go back to the original authority for passing of speaking order in respect of the said bill of entry. 4. On the other hand, the Learned D.R. appearing for revenue reiterates the finding recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. In this case, the appellant had declared the value of 493.58 USD/MT in respect of the goods imported by him for the purpose of assessment of duty liability. The value declared in the bill of entry no. 7787561 dated 23.12.2014 was enhanced by the assessing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
