2014 (9) TMI 987

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the consignment was highly under-invoiced. Based on market enquiry the value of goods were assessed at Rs. 6,53,634/-. Secondly, the Additional Commissioner of Customs levied a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112(a) and redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The appellant paid the differential duty of Rs. 1,71,622/- and got the consignment cleared. Being aggrieved, the appellant immediately filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the adjudication order vide order-in-appeal dated 19/01/2015 and directed the Revenue to re-assess the goods within two months of the order following the principles of natural justice. The Revenue carried the matter before this Tribunal and the same was rejected vide order dated 05/05/200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing on the Mafatlal Industries case of the apex Court, the learned Commissioner noticed that Section 27 was inserted by inserting a proviso which reads as follows: "Provided also where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, as the case may be shall be computed from the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction." 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that it is an accepted position that the duty was not paid under protest as no such letter was tendered by the assessee and as such in the absence of proof that refund application was filed within six months from the date of appellate order, the sanction of refund was held to be bad and time ba....