2007 (8) TMI 507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....486/- under provisions of Sec. 27(1) of Customs Act, 1962. Appellant imported a consignment of Brass Scrap (Honey) weighing 20221.148 Kgs. at the rate of US$ 1240/MT and filed a Bill of Entry No. 909518 dated. 29-10-03. In the Bill of Entry filed by the appellant the total assessable value of Rs. 11,64,939/- declared by computing it with reference to the transaction value of US$ 1240/PMT. The duty of the consignment was assessed at Rs. 5,91,790/-. Later appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 72,486/- on the ground that vide Notification No. 92/2003-Cus., dated. 29-10-2003 (Original Notification No. 36/2001-Cus., dated 3-8-2001). The Tariff value of brass scrap (all grades) was fixed at US$ I099/PMT and accordingly the assessable value is wor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ereby the Tariff value for assessment of Brass scrap is fixed at US$ 1099 PMT. The assessing officer by assessing the imported Brass scrap, the Customs duty, by computing the same from the invoice value, omitted to take notice of the Customs Notification No. 36/2001-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 92/2003-Cus. whereby Tariff value for assessment of goods in question was notified. 5.  The ld. Counsel for the appellant Ms. Purnima Singh submits that there is no dispute that goods are not covered by said notification prescribing the Tariff value for assessment. The goods were assessed to higher Customs duty, only on account of omission by the assessing officer, to take note of the relevant Customs Notifications. Since the assessme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) or Priya Blue reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (SC) would not come in the way of the appellant's claim of refund specially when there is no contentious issue to be deliberated in detail and adjudicated upon, as it is nobody's case that Customs Notification No. 36/2001-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 92/2003-Cus. would not cover the assessment of the goods in question. 9. The appellant also relying upon the following decision in their favour : (i)      Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. CC (Port), Kolkata - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 719 (Tri.). (ii)    Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 83. ....