2003 (10) TMI 698

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h to await the decision of the Larger Bench in the reference made by the Bangalore Bench in the case of Faxtel Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. C.C. Cochin - 2003 (56) R.L.T. 652 (CECAT-Ban.). The learned Chartered Accountant for the appellants informs that the Larger Bench has not yet decided the reference. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that on this issue there are two decisions of the Hon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not appealed against the assessment in the Bill of Entry (B/E) which classified the impugned goods under heading 85.48. This is a case, where assessment has been done on the B/E without issuing a Show Cause Notice to the appellants, without hearing them and without passing an appealable adjudication order. In the case of CCE., Kanpur V/s Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (120) ELT 285 (S.C), the Apex ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se, no appealable order has been issued. The appellants have paid duty in pursuance of an order of an assessment on the B/E. They have subsequently filed a refund claim within the time limit prescribed under Section 27. In a similar case, the Apex Court has ruled vide Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. C.C. (Appeals), Chennai- 2002 (143) ELT 482 (S.C.) to the effect that re-classification/re-asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n take recourse to filing a refund claim under Section 27 and seek a reassessment. To deny an assessee the option to seek reassessment through a refund claim under Section 27, where no appealable order has been passed while assessing the B/E, would render Section 27 redundant and would run counter to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Kanataka Power (Supra). 6. No doubt, appeals agai....