TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication orders rejecting the refund claims filed by the appellant. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed Shipping Bills in respect of export of ROM (Mixture of Iron Ore Fines and Lumps) and paid the duty @ Rs. 300 P.M. as per the Tariff. Subsequently the appellant filed two refund claims on the ground that the consignments consists of Iron Ore Fines and Lumps and the appellants are entitled for benefit under Notification No. 62/2007-Cus dated 3.5.2007 whereby the concessional rate of duty at Rs. 300 per M.T. in respect of Iron Ore Fines. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication orders. 5. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the appellant had declared the consignment as ROM and the appellant never declared the goods as Iron Ore Fines. The Board's Circular No. 14/08 is in respect of the consignment where the consignment is of fines and the Board has clarified that in such cases the fines and lumps should be segregated and if segregation is not possible, the consignment is to be treated as Iron Ore other than fines. In these circumstances the Revenue submitted that even on merits, the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the Notification. 9. We find that the appellant made export of consignments which were declared in the Shipping Bills as ROM i.e. Mixture of Iron Ore Fines and Lumps and the appellant paid duty at Tariff rate. Subsequently a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be segregated to arrive at the quantity of fine and in case the segregation is not possible the duty is to be charged on the entire consignment taking into consideration the consignment of ores other than fines. In the present case in the Shipping Bills the appellant had not declared the goods as Iron Ore Fines. The consignment is in fact of ROM. On assessment of Shipping Bills and in pursuance to that the appellant had paid the duty. It is well settled law that the assessment order passed by the assessing authority is an appealable order under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had not challenged the assessment order and file the refund claim and in the refund claim they challenged the assessment order. We find that the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the purpose of the present case. Section 35B(1)(b) makes an order passed by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35A appealable to the appellate tribunal. 8. From the aforementioned provisions of the Act the position is clear that any order passed by an authority under the Act is appealable to the Collector (Appeals) and a further appeal to the appellate tribunal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) is also provided in section 35. The hierarchy of authorities for adjudication and determination of a matter relevant for charging the excise duty is for a purpose. It is not an empty formality. Classification of the goods manufactured by an assessee is important for the purpose of levy and collection of excise....