2018 (9) TMI 762

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ock Phosphate from an overseas Supplier M/s. Jordon Phosphate Mines Limited, Amman, Jordon on the basis of the Memorandum of Agreement. They got rebate on CTR price on account of higher moisture and Silica contained in the Cargo of Rock Phosphate and subsequently change in the freight rate. The appellant filed a refund claim on reduction of freight in respect of Bill of Entry No. 9575519 dated 15.06.2015. 3. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim pertaining to excess payment of Excise duty consequent upon rebate discount given by the Supplier. 4. By the impugned Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed this appeal. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t and return of the same under the cover of letter dated 24-8-2011, assigning the reason of premature and not maintainable, in our considered opinion, would give rise to the cause of action for filing appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Since, the decision of the adjudicating authority has been conveyed in the letter dated 24-8-2011, it can be concluded that the said letter is only detriment to the interest of the respondent, against which the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal against the said letter having been filed within a period of sixty days from the date of its communication in our opinion, there is no delay in filing appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, we do not find any merits ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have ruled that so long as the order of assessment stands, the duty would be payable as per that order of assessment and refund claim is not an appeal proceeding. Contrary is the case in hand, wherein the respondent was not aggrieved by the order of assessment inasmuch as on the basis of information furnished by it in the Bill of Entry, the same was assessed by the Customs Department. Thus, there was no scope on the part of the respondent to file any appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessed Bill of Entry. Further, the alternative provided in Section 27 ibid, i.e., 'borne by him' was not the subject matter of dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering the second alternative provided in Section 27 ibi....