2006 (12) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent. [Order] : The appellants in this  case have imported crude palm oil and cleared them under bond in August, 2001. They filed Ex-bond Bill of Entry on 5-10-01 for 250 MTs and paid duty on 8-10-01 and filed another Ex-bond Bill of Entry on 5-10-01 and paid duty on 6-10-01.The duty was paid at the fixed tariff value of US $ 337/MT.  Subsequent to the assessment of d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries v. CC - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that in this case there was no wrong assessment of duty and on the date on which the duty was assessed, the tariff rates and rate of duty have been correctly applied. However, since as per Sec. 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, the applicable rate of duty in res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t prevalent rate of duty is a case of omission and not a case of short-levy. In the case of CC Mumbai v. HEG Ltd.-  2006 (205) E.L.T. 254 (T) = 2006 (74) RLT 427 (CESTAT-Mum.) it was held that refund was admissible even if assessment on bill of entry is not challenged by filing appeal in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. ....