2009 (6) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mported were cleared against EPCG licence issued in terms of Notification No. 97/04-Cus., dated 17-9-04. The above notification exempted goods imported from basic customs duty (BCD) in excess of 5% ad volarem as well as from the entire additional duty of customs (CVD) leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The BCD payable was assessed at Rs. 8,08,205/-. An amount of Rs. 27,41,265.76 was debited in the EPCG licence as duty savings. Later MCPL realised that computer controlled HTHP yarn dyeing machine with dye kitchen tank and accessories was covered by Sl. No. 193 of the table to the notification (Item No. 7 in the list 6 of the Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002), that the CVD leviable on the goods imported was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l situation. In the PPN Power Generating Co. P. Ltd. case (supra) the claim of the appellants therein for re-assessment of certain machine cleared on payment of duty extending exemption under Customs Notification No. 80/70, dated 29-8-1970 was ordered to be allowed after examining the CBEC Circular No. 55/98/70-Cus. IV, dated 25-8-70 finding that the assessment had been made by an appraising officer and that the Bill of Entry had not been countersigned by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The assessment by the appraising officer could be reviewed by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Customs when the assessee's claim for exemption could be considered. The assessee's prayer in the instant case for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reventive) [2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)] and held that unless an assessment order had been reviewed under Section 28 and/or modified in appeal, that order subsisted; so long as the assessment subsisted, duty was payable as per that order. He also ordered that the subject Bill of Entry could not be re-assessed and the appellants allowed to avail the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002. 4. In the appeal before the Tribunal, MCPL has taken the ground that the lower authorities had failed to follow the binding directions of the Tribunal in Final Order No. 100/07, dated 5-2-2007. The order of the Tribunal had attained finality; the rights of the assessees continued to be governed by that order unless that finality wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch a change as no trade notice was issued by the authorities notifying the trade of the changes. As the impugned order is contrary to the directions in the remand order of the Tribunal , the same has to be set aside as not legal allowing the assessee's appeal. 6. In this connection we note that both sides contributed to the findings and decision contained in our Final Order No. 100/07, dated 5-2-07. The said order directed assessment of a Bill of Entry by the proper officer after the same had been assessed by the proper officer. This direction is to carry out something which is impermissible in law. This tribunal cannot pass an order granting relief against the provisions of law. In the circumstances, a legal solution has to be asce....