2007 (5) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 110/2004, dated 14-10-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The appellants imported Low Ash Metallurgical (LAM) Coke. They paid the Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs to the tune of Rs. 1,02,59,908/-. In terms of Notification No. 23/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002, as amended by Notification No. 68/2003, dated 30-4-2003, they claimed the benefit of exemption fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a. He has also relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC (Preventive) - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). He has not gone into the unjust enrichment aspect. We find that the Bill of Entry had been assessed provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act. The appellants have stated that even before the provisional assessment was finalized, they had lodged ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) (IGCRDMEG) Rules, we find that the appellant had duly registered himself under Rule 3 of the said Rules vide Registration Certificate dated 23-5-2000 and filed application dated 1-7-2003 under Rule 4, had executed bond undertaking end-use of the imported goods and maintained accounts of quantity and utilization as per R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... examining the relevant accounts, the Chartered Accountant has certified that the duty paid on account of SAD has been shown as "Receivables" by debiting to a separate account called "Amounts Recoverable-Others" and the same has not been treated as Revenue expenditure and as a part of raw material cost. Thus, it is very clear that the duty burden has not been passed on and the refund claim is not ....