2009 (10) TMI 380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for this purpose. 2. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellants and have made written submissions and requested to decide the case on merits. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 4. The appellants purchased a vessel from M/s. Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Limited, Kolkata (MSTC) as per agreement dated 18-1-1987. There was a dispute about the LDT of the vessel and therefore, the assessment was made provisional, In the first round of litigation and matter reached the Tribunal and Tribunal remanded the matter to Original Adjudicating Authority to finalize the assessment vide Order No. 1589/96-A dated 20-5-1996. In the meantime, appellants approached Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsider the same in the light of the order passed in the de-novo proceedings. If the issue has still not been decided by him, both the matters i.e. earlier remanded matter and present one should be adjudicated together and the appellants' liabilities to be judged accordingly." 5. The Original Adjudicating Authority, Assistant Commissioner, Bhavnagar in his Order No. 04/Cus-BVR/2009-10 dated 30-6-2009 finalized the assessment which resulted in dropping the demand originally confirmed amounting to Rs.7,11,237/-. Further, he also held that importer may file refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant is aggrieved by this order and their submission in this regard is as under:- "5. Applicant submits that refund cl....