TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch in the reference made by the Banglaore Bench in the case of Faxtel Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C., Cochin - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 515 (Tri. - Bang.) = 2003 (56) RLT 652 (CEGAT-Ban.). The learned Chartered Accountant for the appellants informs that the Larger-Bench has not yet decided the reference. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that on this issue there are two decisions of the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts have not appealed against the assessment in the Bill of Entry (B/E) which classified the impugned goods under heading 85.48. This is a case, where assessment has been done on the B/E without issuing a Show Cause Notice to the appellants, without hearing them and without passing an appealable adjudication order. In the case of CCE., Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the instant case, no appealable order has been issued. The appellants have paid duty 'in pursuance of an order of an assessment' on the B/E. They have subsequently filed a refund claim within the time limit prescribed under Section 27. In a similar case, the Apex Court has ruled vide Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. C.C. (Appeals), Chennai - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 482 (S.C.) to the effect that re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he B/E, the assessee can take recourse to filing a refund claim under Section 27 and seek a reassessment. To deny an assessee the option to seek reassessment through a refund claim under Section 27, where no appealable order has been passed while assessing the B/E, would render Section 27 redundant and would run counter to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Karnataka Power (supra). 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
