2017 (1) TMI 1450

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ority by its order dated 22.07.2014 sanctioned the refund claim of the appellant amounting to Rs. 3,56,934/- (Rs. Three lakh fifty six thousand nine hundred thirty four only) towards cash payment of basic customs duty. 2. The appellant has been represented by the Ld. Advocate, Shri Rohit Chaudhary and the Revenue has been represented by the Ld. AR, Shri Govind Dixit. 3. After careful considerations of facts on record and the submissions of both the sides, it appears that the main issue is refund of customs duty paid in cash which had earlier been sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner but was reversed by the impugned order setting aside his order-in-original dated 22.07.2014. 3.1 In the present case, there is no dispute that conc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claim. The appellant relies on Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi 2010 (250) ELT 30 (Del.). Hon'ble High Court in the said decision holds that where there is no contest or lis between the importer and the customs regarding the rate of duty and where there is no assessment order issued by the Customs there could be no challenge or appeal to such order; in such a situation the importer will not be deprived of his right to file refund claim. The Hon'ble High Court in this case inter alia observes as under: 2. We have therefore admitted the appeal and framed the following questions of law: "Whether non-filing of appeal against the assessed Bill of E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person: Provided that where an application for refund has been made before the commencement of the Central Excise Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, such application shall be deemed with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)." 5. The Tribunal has referred to the cases of CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000(120) ELT 285] and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 2004 (172) ELT 145 (S.C.). In both these cases, referred to by the Tribunal there was an assessment order which was passed and consequently it was held that where an adjudicating authority passed an order wh....