2021 (12) TMI 856

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant imported Radial Tyres, Tubes and Flaps in 32 consignments between the period April 2011 and March 2012 and paid Anti-Dumping duty at the time of import based on its self-assessment. Realizing that Anti-Dumping duty was not payable, it filed a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 19.06.2013. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 04.08.2014 remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner who, again rejected the refund claim by order dated 17.10.2014 on the ground that the assessment was final and re-assessment of the bills of entry is not possible since the goods have already been cleared a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant and the Revenue and no such 'lis' was decided. In such a scenario, the refund could be directly made as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. versus Commissioner - 2010 (250) ELT 30 (Del.) 5. To such proposition, learned DR appearing for the Revenue agrees. 6. As such, we note that the legal issues are clear. However, the factual position are required to be ascertained, that is, as to whether the 'lis' was involved at the time of assessment or not, in respect of each and every Bill of Entry. With these observations, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verification of the above factual position and to decide the matter afr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Learned Departmental Representative counters the above grounds. He submits that unless the bill of entry is modified no refund claim can be entertained as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries. This order was distinguished by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Aman Medical Products Limited [2010 (250) E.L.T. 30 (Del.)]. The Tribunal had, in the first round of litigation in its final order relied on Aman Medical Products Ltd. and remanded the matter to the Original Authority to decide matter examining that there was a 'lis' between the importer and the Revenue in respect of each of the bills of entry. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the issue of sanction of refunds in the absence of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order was squarely within the scope of the remand. On the argument that the Tribunal's final order had attained finality as there was no appeal by the Department, he submits that the order of the Tribunal is subject to subsequent legal pronouncement of Supreme Court in the case of ITC Limited. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be rejected. 7. We have considered the arguments of both sides and perused the records. 8. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant filed bills of entry and assessed duty including Anti-Dumping duty and paid the same. Thereafter, without challenging the assessment of the bills of entry, it filed refund claims. Relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Aman Medical Products, the matter....