2014 (3) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bill of Entry dated 20 February 2009 for the clearance of the "Reach Stacker" with accessories (impugned goods) under license No.0310438457 issued under Served From India Scheme (SFIS) of the Foreign Trade Policy. The petitioner had claimed classification of the said goods as "material handling equipment" and the benefits of the customs duty exemption under Customs Notification No.92/2004Cus. dated 10 September 2004 as amended, which extends the benefits of the utilization of duty credit earned under SFIS for payment of customs duty in case of goods covered by the above Notification. 3. The Asst.Commissioner of Customs had by order dated 30 March 2009 rejected/disallowed the petitioner's claim for the benefit of Customs Notification ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to pay the duty. 5. In view of the above order dated 31 August 2009 of the appellate authority, the petitioner submitted an application dated 6 November 2009 for refund of customs duty paid on 18 April 2009 in respect of Reach Stackers. Copy of the application is produced at Exh.C to the writ petition. 6. The respondent revenue, however, has carried the matter in appeal before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) by filing Appeal No.C1081/ 09. The revenue also moved an application for interim stay before the Tribunal. But by order dated 28 February 2001 (Exh.G) the Tribunal dismissed the said application after observing that the revenue has not made out a prima facie case for stay. Even though the Tribunal ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plication of the revenue, the petitioner is entitled to get benefits of the appellate order, more particularly when the petitioner's case is already covered by the decision of this Court in Ranadip Shipping & Transport Co.Pvt.Ltd. (supra). 10. Following observations made by the Apex Court in Union of India v/s. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) in similar circumstances are squarely applicable to the present case also: "... ... ... The High Court has, in our view, rightly criticised this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too veh....