TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of in the communication rejecting the request for recall and reassessment of the bills of entry appear to be related to the consequence of acceding to the request of the appellant herein and the judicial rulings impeding such consequence. Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, that observation, though insinuated as ground for rejection, is merely peripheral and incidental in the absence of disposal of the claim for refund. Bearing that in mind and the failure on the part of the original authority to either refer the request to the authority vested with the power to grant amendments under section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 or to grant a hearing to the applicant on the issue of recall and reassessment of bills of entry relating to goods cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the classification of goods, in the respective bills of entry were not disputed by customs authorities and that they, by omitting to claim the concessional rate of duty available on import of all goods conforming to the description in serial no. 448D of notification no. 50/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017, had paid full duty at 15% instead of at 7.5%. Having been made aware subsequently, they, by application dated 18th December 2019 addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, sought refund of excess so paid which is stated to be yet pending for disposal. The appellant filed a separate request dated 23rd December 2019 before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group V), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai for recall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, with its restriction insofar as goods cleared for home consumption is concerned, would apply to the facts and circumstances of the dispute. 5. Though both the lower authorities have forayed into the zone of invoking of section 27 of Customs Act, 1962, we must take note that such application for refund was not before the original authority and the observations thereof in the communication rejecting the request for recall and reassessment of the bills of entry appear to be related to the consequence of acceding to the request of the appellant herein and the judicial rulings impeding such consequence. Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, that observation, though insinuated as ground for rejection, is merely peripheral and incidental in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
