https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415596 The appellant's refund claim for excess Anti-Dumping Duty paid was initially rejected for not challenging the bill of entry assessment, deemed beyond the notice scope. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the claim time-barred, despite no specified time limit. The appellate authority clarified that challenging the bill of entry assessment is not a prerequisite for claiming a refund. Both authorities were faulted for exceeding the Show Cause Notice charges. The appellant's entitlement to the refund was upheld, citing the absence of a time limit and provisions in the Customs Tariff Act, supported by previous similar cases. The judgment remanded the case for refund processing. en-us Thu, 02 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Dec 2021 08:55:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415596 The appellant's refund claim for excess Anti-Dumping Duty paid was initially rejected for not challenging the bill of entry assessment, deemed beyond the notice scope. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the claim time-barred, despite no specified time limit. The appellate authority clarified that challenging the bill of entry assessment is not a prerequisite for claiming a refund. Both authorities were faulted for exceeding the Show Cause Notice charges. The appellant's entitlement to the refund was upheld, citing the absence of a time limit and provisions in the Customs Tariff Act, supported by previous similar cases. The judgment remanded the case for refund processing. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 02 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415596