2008 (9) TMI 850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is sought AC (Refunds) letter No. and Date Claim made in the appeal Amount claimed Rs. C3/286/R/07/ AIR M/s. SPIC Ltd. 24850 dt 26-6-92 S25A/16/R/07 Refunds Air - O-in-O No. 52/07 dt 24-2-07 Benefit of notification No. 105/92 dt 1-3-92 19,079/- + 1,09,494.06 C3/287/R/20/07-Air M/s. SPIC Ltd. 26817 dt 27-5-94 S25A/17R/07 Refunds Air - O-in-O No. 52/07 dt 24-2-07 Reclassification under CTH 850440 which carries lesser rate of duty. 19,079/- + 1,09,494.06 C3/399/ 07-SEA M/s. Trishla Distributor 845062 dt 26-7-05 S25/CD1/ 00298/LR6/05-Refunds dt 28-2-07 Benefit of Notification No. 72/05 dt 22-7-06 Rs. 12,549/- The appellants had paid duty on import of consignments on merit ra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the competent officer. This was the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Priya Blue Industries v. CC [2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)]. Therefore the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund claims of the respondents were inconsistent with law. They deserved to be set aside. 4. The respondents M/s. SPIC argued that the authorization on the strength of which the subject appeals were filed were made in terms of Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said sub-section applied to review of an order of the Commissioner of Customs and to issue directions for filing of appeal against orders of the Commissioner before the Appellate Tribunal. As the authorization was not in accordance with law, the appeals were not validl....