2017 (11) 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

....eal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the CA whereby the CA rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order-in-original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant imported polymer of ethyiene under Bill of Entry (BoE) No.2750087 dated 29.09.2015. The said goods were classified under Chapter Heading 39 of the Customs Tariff. The said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....knowledgement dated 09.12.2015 was issued by the customs authorities. But nothing was done on the said application by the customs authorities and instead of deciding on the said application, surprisingly OIO dated 30.05.2016 was passed by the AC wherein the refund of excess duty was summarily rejected even without hearing the appellant in person as mandated under the customs act. 3. Aggrieved by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d order. He further submitted that the impugned order is silent with respect to the vital aspect of eligibility of concessional rate of duty on the goods imported, reassessment in the light of the fact of the case and the rate of duty applicable on such imports. He further submitted that the original authority has passed the impugned order without serving notice and without affording an opportunit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that the impugned order rejecting the appeal of the appellant is not sustainable in law and thereafter the same is set aside by remanding the case back to the original authority with a direction to first decide the application of the appellant for reassessment of the BoE and thereafter decide the refund application after following the principles of nat....