2005 (2) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the OIA No. 65/2002-Cus., dated 16-10-2002. The appellants had prayed for refund of the amounts in terms of their claim. The claim was rejected solely on the ground that the Government of India had reduced the Tariff value from US$ 372 per MT to US$ 307 per MT and, therefore, the refund cannot be considered while finalising the provisional assessment. This view of the authorities below is chal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... L.T. 140 (Tri. - Chennai) (iii) CCE, Meerut-II v. Steel and Metal Tubes (India) Ltd - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1201 (T) (iv) Swaraj Mazda Ltd. v. CC, Kandla - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 164 (Tribunal) (v) Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CCE Customs - 2002 (53) RLT 108 (CEGAT-Mum) 3. Furthermore, the plea that failure to indicate the amount of duty in the invoice in terms of Section 28C of Custo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ennai - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 444 (Tri-Chennai). 5. In sum, we find both the orders are not just and proper in view of the judgments cited above. The refund claim has to be considered and granted while finalising the provisional assessment. The question of refund not being available when provisional assessments have not been finalised is not a correct view. The refund arises when the assessments are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X