TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under the various Bills of Payment. Thus, the total amount which needs to be refunded to the petitioner is ₹ 1.49 Crores (rounded off) - there being no objection on the part of the respondents in granting the refund of the amount of Pre-deposit of ₹ 71.65 Lacs (rounded off), we direct the respondents to refund the said amount of Pre- deposit within a period of Two Weeks from Today. The said amount shall be deposited in the Bank Account of the petitioner, details of which shall be furnished by the petitioner to the Department, on its Official Email ID. Refund of amount of additional Duty collected by the respondent - HELD THAT:- The respondent Department cannot be a Judge in its own cause, more particularly, when no stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f networking and broadcasting equipments for the purposes of providing communications, networking and broadband services to multi system operators. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that show-cause notices were issued by the respondent-Department seeking differential duties on the products that were being imported from various countries and maintaly, from U.S.A., China and France. According to the petitioner, the imported goods were classified under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8517 and thus, the petitioner derived the benefit of exemption from the payment of Duty under Notification No.24 of 2005 dated 01.03.2005. The first show- cause Notice was issued on 03.12.2014 followed by show-cause Notices dated 22.06.2016 and 29.12.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent Department and held that since the goods were having the function of transmitting data along with other functions, they would merit classification under the CTH 8517 and not under the CTH 8528. 5. It is to be noted that Appeal Petition No. C/11966/2018 arising out the very Order-in-Original dated 25.04.2018 passed by the respondent- Commissioner of Customs was preferred by the respondent-Department. In the said order, since the demand of Customs Duty on the issue of classification of goods was for the extended period, the same was set aside by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was aimed at such setting aside of demand on the ground of it being time barred. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions, held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit the entire refund amount of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court. (C) Pending the issuance of Notice and further hearing of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to grant ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer-(B) above. 7. On issuance of Notice by this Court, the respondents have appeared and Affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 wherein, the authority concerned has not disputed the details regarding issuance of the show-cause notices, the passing of the Order-in-Original as well as the Final Order passed by the Tribunal in the two Appeals. However, it has been submitted that against the order passed by the Tribunal, the Department has preferred an appeal before the Apex Court, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Tribunal in Appeal Petition No. C/11809/2018 in favour of the petitioner whereby, the goods were classified under the CTH 8517. However, still the Provisional Assessment has not been finalized and the Department had continued to collect duties from the petitioner under the CTH 8528. 9. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Priyank Lodha appearing for the respondents, on taking instructions, has submitted that there is no dispute insofar as the refund of the amount of Pre-deposit of ₹ 71.65 Lacs (rounded off) is concerned. However, according to him, insofar as the amount of additional duty of ₹ 77.54 Lacs (rounded off) is concerned, the same may be directed subject to the outcome of the matter, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
