9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that the appellant had imported component and parts of engine during the impugned period 20.09.2000 to 29.12.2001. They paid the differential customs duty "Under Protest" owing to classification dispute on the imported goods. Subsequently on 23.08.2004, they filed a refund claim for refund of differential custom duty of Rs. 43,46,830/- along with Bills of Entry, TR-6 Challan, C.A Certificate and other relevant documents in original. The Appellants were informed that as their refund claim of Rs.3,00,78,856/- for the earlier period was in dispute, hence this refund claim would be kept in abeyance till the earlier claim is finally disposed. The refund amount for the earlier period was sanctioned on the basis of CESTAT Final Order No. 5573 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TIONAL PVT. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF CUS., KANDLA - 2019 (370) ELT 1302 (Tri- AHMD)] 4. Shri Vishwa Jeet Saharan, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the department reiterated the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) and place reliance on the decision of Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of Mineral Enterprises Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore reported as [2022 (2) TMI 680-CESTAT Bangalore]. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned authorised representative. The issue relates to the rejection of refund claim in the impugned order, wherein the appellant has submitted that the same was done on a ground Which was not taken in the show cause notice. 6. I note that the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 9 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that no new ground not specified in the show cause notice can be raised by the adjudicating authority. In the case of Senor Metals Pvt Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rajkot [2023 (7) TMI 1115 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], this Tribunal held as follows: "5.2 It has been the contention of the learned Advocate that verification report referred in the order-in-original, in the above-mentioned Para have never been revealed or provided to the appellant. We also find that the basis on which the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand has never been subject matter of the show cause notice and therefore, we hold that Adjudicating Authority has travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and therefore, violated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-original for the reasons as stated above and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for de-novo adjudication." 7. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs Toyo Engineering India Limited [2006 (8) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court held the following: "16. Learned counsel for the Revenue tried to raise some of the submissions which were not allowed to be raised by the Tribunal before us, as well. We agree with the Tribunal that the revenue could not be allowed to raise these submissions for the first time in the second appeal before the Tribunal. Neither adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority had denied the facility of the project import to the respondent on any of these grounds. These ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
