2017 (12) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....disposal. 2.The petitioner is an importer of textile goods and at the time of import, they claimed exemption from payment of additional duty in terms of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, by relying upon notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004.  However, this claim for exemption was not accepted by the Customs Authority and hence, the petitioner paid additional duties and then filed appeals before the first respondent. The said appeals have been dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the assessments were self-assessment and the petitioner has to only file refund claims before the third respondent. 3.Since the petitioner's case is that they have filed appeals before the first respondent, it may not be nec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g for four long years and passed the impugned order referring to a decision of the CESTAT, Mumbai, in the case of M/s.Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur reported in 2014-TIOL-3015-CESTAT-Mum. By referring to the said decision, the first respondent has stated in the impugned order that under Section 128 of the Act, an appeal can be filed before this Forum by any person who is aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act by an officer in the rank lower than the Commissioner of Customs and in the petitioner's case, as there is no decision or order by the assessment group contrary to the self-assessment made by the appellant themselves, the appeals are not maintainable. 8.If a Court or Quasi Judicial authority comes ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent would reject the application for refund as being time barred under Section 27 of the Act. 10.Therefore, this is a fit case where this Court should issue appropriate direction so that the petitioner is not left without any remedy. It is made clear this direction is proposed to be issued considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, when the appellate authority kept the appeals pending for four long years. Therefore, while confirming the order passed by the first respondent, there will be a direction to the petitioner to file applications for refund before the third respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such applications are filed, the t....