TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Original Authority , despite acknowledging the receipt has failed to give the benefit of said certificate in its order dated 22.8.2019. The request of appellant for re-assessment of duty was pending before the department since 2018. The findings of the Original Adjudicating Authority who were aware of order upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order under challenge have failed to appreciate the pendency of said request of re- assessment. Keeping in view the mandate directed by the Apex Court in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV [ 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] , (where Apex Court has made the reassessment as a mandatory pre requisite for considering the request of the refund of duty p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejection of refund claim. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order No. 1017/2020-21 dated 15.10.2020 rejected the appeal. The appellant still aggrieved is before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard Shri B L Yadav, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, learned Departmental Representative for the department. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there has been inadvertent mistake on the part of the appellant while not filing the certificate of origin at the initial stage of submitting Bill of Entry. However, the same was supplied with and prior to that there has been request for reassessment by the appellant vide his letter dated 24.9.2018 as was given to the Deputy Commissioner of Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority itself i.e., on 26.2.2019. The Original Authority , despite acknowledging the receipt has failed to give the benefit of said certificate in its order dated 22.8.2019. The request of appellant for re-assessment of duty was pending before the department since 2018. The findings of the Original Adjudicating Authority who were aware of order upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order under challenge have failed to appreciate the pendency of said request of re- assessment. The refund claim of the appellant has been rejected on two counts: 1. Certificate of origin 2. The request for re-assessment 8. In view of the above observation and the facts both the grounds are observed as wrong. Finally, keeping in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
