2016 (3) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learance of Mercedes Benz Car donated to their trust by a devotee from USA. The Bill of Entry was assessed under CTH 87032491 @ 105% BCD + 10% CVD + 8% + 1% + 0.125%. In terms of Notification No. 21/02 Sl. No. 344, the applicable rate of duty @ 60% BCD + 16% CVD + 8% + 1% + 0.125%. Hence, the appellant filed a refund claim for the difference of duty paid at the time of clearance. The same was rejected as inadmissible since they did not challenge/protest the assessment order or payment of duty, which became final. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal by relying the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE Vs. M/s. Flock India Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (120) ELT 285 (S.C.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me Court Order of M/s. Flock India Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Priya Blue Industries (supra). Further, she submits that this Tribunal Order on identical issue rejected the refund claim in the case of Airport Authority of India - 2005 (180) ELT 223 (Tri.-Del.). She submits that the Tribunal order was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (322) ELT 177 (S.C.). She drew attention to the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 1,2 and 3, at page 50, where the appellant's main grounds was that there is no requirement to challenge the order of assessment separately. 5. The Ld. Advocate countered the arguments of the Ld. AR and submits that Airport Authority of India Vs. CC, Chennai (supra) relied on by the Revenue is not....