2015 (12) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oms duty vide order F.No. 460/33/2006-Cus. V dated 11.1.2007, for the purpose of import of item like Uncut marble blocks, Myanmar timber, Myanmar wooden carved panels etc. for the construction of their Meditation Centre. The said exemption was initially granted upto 30.6.2007, which was extended upto 31.12.2008 vide Govt. of Indias letter F. No. 460/33/2006-Cus.V dated 30.7.2007 and further vide Govt. of India, Ministry of Finances letter dated 2.3.2009 it was directed that the Ad-hoc exemption order No. 3/2007, as amended by letter dated 30.7.2007, the validity period of the Ad-hoc Exemption Order may be read as December 31, 2009, instead of December 31, 2008. A copy of the Ad-hoc exemption and/or subsequent modifications were also marke....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n merits. 5. Being aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that as the respondent assessee had not challenged the assessment of Bill of Entry, the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in allowing the refund claim, which is against the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock India (supra) and in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Eurotex India - 2007 (216) ELT 137 (Tri-LB). 5.1 The learned AR for the Revenue on the basis of aforementioned decision stated that there is error in the impugned order and accordingly it is fit to be set aside. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent assessee have filed the copy of the Ad-hoc exemption order before the Tribunal, as already noticed here....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicating authority subsequently by filing a claim for refund on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order. The Hon'ble High Court held that this judgment will not apply when there is no assessment order which was in dispute, like as is in the facts of the present case. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the facts in the present case before us are the same as the facts before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products (supra). The excess duty was paid in exercise of the exemption notification, whereas in the present case the appellant had claimed exemption, but the same was denied and the duty was paid under protest. I find that the facts of the c....