TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fines. They paid Customs Duty of Rs. 1,64,10,000/- and Cess of Rs. 54,700/- on 10.06.2008, Duty @ Rs. 300/MT and Cess @ Rs. 1/MT on the date of filing the shipping bill. After paying Customs Duty, they presented the shipping bill for assessment and the same was assessed and let export order was issued on 10.06.2008. By Notification No.78/2008- Cus dated 13.06.2008, the rate of duty was changed from specific rate to 15% adv with immediate effect. As the vessel did not arrive and no loading of goods was commenced by 13.06.2008, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise reassessed the shipping bill and directed the respondents to pay differential duty arrived by adopting 15% adv rate of duty as per notification 78/2008, vide letter dated 18.06....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dering the submissions made regarding the revised refund claim also. Against such order, the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal and vide Final Order No.1068/2010 dated 15.07.2010 the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the entire issue afresh and pass a speaking order following the principles of natural justice. 3. Pursuant to such remand order of the Tribunal, the refund sanctioning authority, after granting personal hearing to the respondent, rejected the refund claim on the ground that the duty paid in excess cannot be refunded because the respondents have not challenged the assessment order on the shipping bill. With regard to the revised refund claim of enhanced duty as per notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the second claim is on the ground that they are not liable to pay higher duty as per Notification No.78/2008-Cus dated 13.06.2008. It is obvious that the second claim is on a different subject and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have entertained the second claim as revised claim. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 5. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. The matter was taken up for disposal after hearing learned authorized representative and perusal of records. After hearing the appeal an application for adjournment was placed before us by the Court Master. The appeal having been heard we proceed to dispose the same. 6. The department is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who held....