2008 (9) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n amount of US$ 24725. After clearing the goods covered by the Bill of Entry dated 10-5-02, they received another consignment comprising spares covered by the same purchase order and of a value of US$ 1448.75. This amount was reflected in the invoice covering the second parcel of spares. The goods covered by this invoice was cleared on payment of duty of Rs. 39,390/-. As the invoice which accompanied the first parcel showed the value of all the spares covered by the purchase order and duty was paid on that value, duty paid on the consignment under Bill of Entry dated 25-6-02 was excess payment. The importer claimed refund of this amount. The original authority rejected the claim on the ground that the importer had not challenged the incorre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcular and in terms of Circular No. 24/2004-Cus., dated 18-3-2004, a refund claim was not maintainable when the assessee had not challenged the assessment order which had become final. In the instant case, in the absence of challenge to the assessment of the Bill of Entry dated 10-5-02, the excess duty paid following the assessment could not be allowed as refund pursuant to a claim filed by the importer. Ld. ]DR submits a copy of the decision of a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CC (Imports) v. Eurotex Indus. & Exports Ltd. - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 137 (Tri.-LB), which had held that a refund was not maintainable unless and until the assessment order in pursuance of which the duty had been paid was not challenged. 4. I have considered the....