2021 (12) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-Cus (ADD) dated 12.12.2008 at material time. However, this Notification was amended vide Notification No. 4 of 2016-Cus (ADD) dated 29.01.2016 and the rate of ADD was reduced  to Rs. 5.90 per kg retrospectively for the period from 05.05.2008 to 19.09.2008. Thus, the appellant claimed the refund of differential excess Anti-Dumping duty paid by them. The adjudicating authority has rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant have not challenged the assessment of bills of entry. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the original authority approached the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) by filing the appeal. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refund is time bar however, no proper finding was given on the ground ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and Cochin Port. He submitted the order in original No. 70883/19 dated 23.08.2019 (Chennai) and order in original No. 366/17 dated 04.04.2017 (Cochin). 3. Shri R. Parekh, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have careful considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. Firstly, I find that the adjudicating authority rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant have not challenged the assessment of bill of entry. This is not the charge made in the Show Cause Notice, therefore, the order of the adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice, for this reason itself the orde....