TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. After carefully considering the reasons as cited in the applications, the early hearing is allowed. With the concurrence of both sides, the appeals itself are taken up for decision. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chemical fertilizers and has imported Rock Phosphate for use of manufacture. Contracts with overseas suppliers contain price variation clause on account of annual discount/quantity rebate, determined after end of the contract period. The Bills of Entry were filed and duty was paid on the price as per Bill of Lading, which is higher. Annual discount/quantity rebate, resulted in reduction of price/assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Refund claims....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as shown in the relevant bills of lading. As mentioned above, upon determination of quantity rebate/price discount, the foreign suppliers refunded the differential amount. The amount refunded by the foreign suppliers, had consequential impact on the valuation of imported goods. As a consequence, the value of imported rock phosphate was reduced by the amount of refund. Such reduced value represented the transaction value of imported Rock Phosphate, in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act. 7. As stated above, the appellant at the time of importation, paid duty on the value shown in the bill of lading, which was higher than the transaction value, determined subsequently, after receipt of discount/rebate amount from the foreign suppliers. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Limited (Supra), dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below. "5. On perusal of the case records, we find that the refund application filed by the respondent on 25-5-2011, claiming refund of excess duty paid by it was returned by the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) under the cover of his letter dated 24-8-2011. Thereafter, the respondent had filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 12-9-2011. Cause of action for filing appeal will not be considered as the date of assessment of the Bill of Entry inasmuch as the benefit of duty exemption provided under the above referred notifications was claimed by the respondent in the refund application, since the same was not cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion furnished by the respondent, since the Bill of Entry was assessed by the Customs Department and the assessed duty was paid by the respondent, it cannot be said that the duty was paid by the respondent "in pursuance of an order of assessment". The case of the respondent falls under the second category, i.e., "borne by him" contained in Section 27 ibid, according to which, since the duty incidence has been borne by the respondent, claiming of refund of such excess duty in terms of Section 27 ibid, in our view is in conformity with the statutory provisions. 7. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (supra) cited by Revenue in their grounds of appeal is distinguishable from the facts of the present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (i) and (ii). The object of Section 27(i)(ii) is to cover those classes of cases, where the duty is paid by a person without an order of assessment, i.e. in a case like the present where the assessee pays the duty in ignorance of a notification which allows him payment of concessional rate of duty merely after filing a Bill of Entry. In fact, such a case is the present case in which there is no assessment order for being challenged in the appeal which is passed under Section 27(1)(i) of the Act because there is no contest or lis and hence no adversarial assessment order. The Tribunal has referred to the cases of 5. CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285] and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (P....