2019 (4) TMI 1187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etween January 2009 and May 2009 that were held as misdeclared. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the goods had been properly described in the bills of entry but that heading no. 7315 1800 and no. 8708 9900 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 had been erroneously entered therein. Upon becoming aware of the assessment arising from these headings burdening them with excess duty of 2.5% ad valorem, re-assessment of these bills of entry was sought for by application dated 26th May 2009. The original authority refused to entertain the application and this was upheld by Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai II in order in appeal no. 423-Gr.CRC-I-/2011-JNCH-/IMP-351 dated 23rd September 2011 against which this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ht either refund or reassessment which are not within the scope of section 149 of Customs Act, 1962. According to him, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Blue Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC)] and in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt Ltd [2000 (120) ELT 285 (SC)] preclude entitlement to refund except by challenge to the assessment in appellate proceedings. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs (Imp) Nhava Sheva v. Eurotex Indus. & Exports Ltd [2007 (216) ELT 137 (Tri-LB)] holding that refund claims are not maintainable except in consequence of successful challenge to the assessment order....