2022 (9) TMI 1073

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her the rejection of refund of CVD claimed by the taxpayer is correct or not? 3. Heard Shri M.A. Mudimannan, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Learned Superintendent for the Revenue. 4. The contentions of the Learned Advocate for the appellant are summarized as under:- * The appellant imported silk fabrics through Chennai Port. Bills-of-Entry with all relevant documents were filed for assessment of the goods imported. * There was a dispute as to whether silk fabrics imported were liable for CVD or not at that point of time, with multiple litigations pending before various higher judicial fora. * The appellant, in order to save the demurrages and other charges, sought for adjudication / assessment o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t there was no protest expressed by the appellant and hence, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) as reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) as well as the subsequent decision in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV as reported in 2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.) would squarely apply. She would therefore submit that the claim of the appellant lacks merit. 6. In reply, Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that both the lower authorities have rejected the claim of the appellant on limitation per se, without going into the merits of the appellant's claim and hence, both the orders of the lower authorities are non....