Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2020 (1) TMI 1050

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants had imported goods like smoke and fire alarm, AC leakage detector, wall systems etc., without payment of duty in terms of Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dt. 31/03/2003. The Department during February 2006 brought to the appellant's notice that the said goods were not specified for duty free import under aforesaid notification. On being pointed out, they paid Rs. 1,06,08,991/- and interest Rs. 44,32,189/- under protest and requested for speaking order. Vide OIO No.14/2008-Cus. Adjn dt. 28/08/2008 the adjudicating authority held the Fire Alarm System as eligible for exemption but found other goods as ineligible and confirmed and appropriated Rs. 17,28,996/- as duty along with i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave not attained finality, the same cannot be called as arrears which could be adjusted against the refund sanctioned. She further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Tribunal by various decisions cited below:- i. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Hyderabad-II [2019-TIOL- 1160-CESTAT-HYD] ii. ABB Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2016-TIOL-2186-CESTAT-BANG] iii. Poonam Trading Company Vs. CC, Mumbai [2008(229) ELT 627 (Tri. Mumbai)] iv. Voltas Ltd. Vs. CCE [2006(201) ELT 615 (Tri. Bang.)] v. Stella Rubber Works (Unit-II) Vs. CCE(Appeals-II), Bangalore [2007(211) ELT 433 (Tri. Bang.). Affirmed in 2011(267) ELT 495 (Kar.). 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s only one issue to be examined in these cases is whether appropriation of rebate sanctioned in cash against the customs duty arrears is in order. As per the Revenue, the appropriation is permitted in accordance with law whereas as per the appellants the appropriation of rebate of refund cannot be done against the customs duty arrears by invoking Section 142 of the Customs Act. Further on perusal we find that all the orders against which appropriation is made have been challenged by the appellant before this Tribunal and the stay has been granted by this Tribunal and they are pending for final disposal and the demand has not attained finality. Further it is a settled position of law as held in the cases cited above that the appropriation of....