TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ental Representative, for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellants imported seven consignments of Standard Newsprint Paper. There were seven Bills of Entry. The proper officer assessed the Bills of Entry levying 4% Additional Duty (Imports) under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs. Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant cleared the consignments during March and April 2006 on payment of duty. However, later, they came to know that the said goods attract 'Nil' rate of Additional Duty (Imports) vide Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. dated 1-3-2006. Therefore, they filed a refund claim on 10-4-2006 for refund of the amount erroneously paid. Revenue issued Show Cause Notice proposing rejection of the claim on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment is apparently possible only on the request of the importer. This is what is precisely done in this case and while requesting for re-assessment, the company has claimed for the refund of the amount that would flow as a consequence thereof. Under these circumstances, challenging the assessment by way of an appeal does not arise at all. 5.2 Moreover, this is not a case where the importer had claimed for the benefit of a certain notification and the proper officer had denied the said benefit so as to dispute the assessment and seek an appellate remedy on assessment. This is simply a case where the proper officer has failed to apply the notification that prescribed an effective rate of 'nil' duty unconditionally on the imported goods an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he part of the assessing officer as tacitly admitted by the department in its para-wise comments. Therefore, the ratio of Priya Blue case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. On the contrary, the ratio decidendi in the case of G.S. Metalica v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Nhava Sheva - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-Mumbai) is applicable in all fours to the facts of this case. 5.5 It is true that the appellant had not claimed the benefit of the relevant notification in the Bill of Entry. When there is a Notification, which prescribes an effective rate of duty, the assessing officer ought to have applied the same without asking for it by the importer. In a case like this, even if the importer wants to pay the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct assessment is carried out. Generally, assessment involves classification of the goods, valuation and applying the correct rate of duty taking into account the exemption notifications. The import of the goods with regard to the Import-Export Policy is also to be examined. The word 'assessment' includes all the above. As regards the rate of duty, the Tariff Schedule against the description of the goods mentions the rate of duty. However, in certain cases, the goods are unconditionally exempted by virtue of certain exemption notifications. In other cases, the exemption from duty, either partial or complete, is dependent on certain conditions. For example, in certain cases, the importer is expected to furnish certificates from competent auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench, followed the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Eurotex. Therefore, the facts of that case decided by this Bench are distinguishable from those of the present case. 7.3 The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Shree hari Chemicals v. UOI & Anr. - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.), had observed that there was an obligation on the part of the Department to extend relief given by an unconditional exemption Notification and the same could not be refused merely because the appellants had omitted to claim that relief. Therefore, one cannot blindly apply the ratio of the Priya Blue case and also the Larger Bench decision of Eurotex case to the facts of the present case. In fact, in the case of G.S Metalica (cited supra), the Tribunal he....