TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (6) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... above goods chargeable to BCD @ 30%. After taking note of this corrigendum the assessee filed refund claims for a total amount of duty of Rs. 1,95,422/- being the excess duty of Customs paid. These refund claims were within the normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The original authority rejected the claims as unsubstantiated, for want of certain documents. The first appellate authority took the view that the refund claims were not maintainable on account of the fact that the assessments of the Bills of Entry had not been challenged. In the present appeal, it is submitted that, as the lower appellate authority has rejected the refund claims on a ground extraneous to the order-in-origi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07 of the table annexed to the above Notification thereby rendering the goods chargeable to BCD @ 30%. The assessee sought to claim the benefit of the amendment of the Notification, through the refund claims in question. These claims have been held to be not maintainable for want of challenge to the assessment. 3. The' learned SDR has contended that the appellants, to be eligible to claim the refund of excess duty paid, should have applied to the proper officer of Customs for re-assessment of the goods in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Customs Act. It appears from the tenor of arguments made by the learned Counsel that, on the facts of this case, re-assessment should have been done by the proper officer suo motu. Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that any statement in such entry or document or any information so furnished is not true in respect of any matter relevant to the assessment, the goods may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, be re-assessed to duty." In this case, subsequent to the assessment of the goods in terms of the provisions contained in the first half of sub-section (4), it was noted (from the Notification as amended) that the effective rate of BCD on the goods was 30% instead of 40%. Therefore, the goods should have been re-assessed to duty in terms of the provisions contained in the second half of the above sub-section (underlined). The question now is whether such re....