9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC, CE & ST, Visakhapatnam M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., OIA No. 04/2010(V) CH dated 26.02.2010 C/1533/2010 OIA No. 05/2010 (V) CH dated 26.02.2010 2. The Respondent herein is an exporter of iron ore fines and filed shipping bills for export of iron ore fines which were chargeable to duty @ 15% ad valorem on the FOB basis. As per the invoice, the export of iron ore value was @183.75 Per MT on C&F basis. Accordingly, they paid export duty and goods were exported. Thereafter, the respondent realized that they had wrongly mentioned the wet weight in the invoice and shipping bills. As per the sale agreement, the price was USD 138.75 per DMT FOB. Thus, it was found that excess export duty was paid by mentioning more quantity than wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods for delivery at the time and place of exportation under Section 14 of the Customs Act, shall be the FOB price." The respondent has also claimed refunds on this count since their exports were affected prior to 31.12.2008 on the ground that the practice of treating FOB value as cum duty price envisaged in the Board Circular applies to them as well. This contention was also not accepted by the lower authority but was accepted by the First Appellate Authority. 3. It is the contention of the Revenue in these appeals that the First Appellate Authority has wrongly allowed the benefit of this circular dated 10.11.2008 as the export has already taken place before the circular was issued and there was no pending issue of assessment. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls in the form of (a) indicating the wet weight instead of dry weight and (b) in paying the duty on the FOB value when the standard practice during the period, as confirmed by the CBEC Circular No. 18/2008-Cus was to pay duty taking the export value as cum duty price. He, therefore, asserted that the First Appellate Authority has correctly rectified these defects and allowed them refund. 7. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. In the case of Sameera Trading Company [2011 (264) ELT 578 (Tri-Bang.)] (in which one of us, Shri M.V. Ravindran was a member) identical issue related to the CBEC Circular No. 18/2008-Cus dated 10.11.2008 was under consideration. In that case also duty was assessed contrary to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
