2017 (10) TMI 1411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... DR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 61/2010, dated 2-12-2010. 2. Heard Learned DR. None appeared for the respondent. 3. On perusal of the records and considering the submissions made by Learned DR, we find that the issue that falls for considerati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and 4406158, dated 19-9-2008 were assessed on FOB basis and duty was paid on 14-8-2008, 19-8-2008 and 23-9-2008 respectively. The appellant preferred refund of duty on cum-duty price basis under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 after issue of Circular No. 18/2008-Cus, dated 10-11-2008. Para 4 of the said Circular states "the existing practice of computation of export duty and cesses by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore if the assessing officer committed a mistake, the same could be corrected and if any excess amount was collected pursuant to wrong assessment, that amount should be refunded. There was no need for importer to challenge the assessment to obtain the refund of the excess amount paid". The onus was on the assessing officer to correctly quantify the duty liability on the export consignment.....