TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 4191 Bills of Entry as assessed under CTI 3920 9999 of Customs Tariff. Being aggrieved by such reassessment, the appellant filed 4191 appeals before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who confirmed the assessments in respect of the said bills of entry by the impugned order dated 22.09.2023. The appellant has challenged the said order in the instant appeals before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Shri B. L. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Kumar, the Authorised Representative for the revenue and have also perused the records of the case. 4. Referring to the provisions of Section 129A (6) of the Act, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the same is applicable only where "duty and interest is demanded" and since in the present case, there is no demand raised by the customs department and the impugned order has merely confirmed the assessments of the bills of entry, it is purely a case of refund of excess duty deposited by the appellant. Relying on the decisions of this Tribunal in Richemont India Pvt. Ltd., vs. CC (Import and General) New Delhi - 2016 (42) STR 26, Gylph International Ltd. vs. CCEx & ST, Noida - 2013 (31) STR 430 (LB) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication concluded by the respondent, and claimed for refund of excess duty discharged. Details of such Bills of Entry along with details of excess duty paid have been annexed herewith as Annexure-4." 7.1 Further, in the memo of appeal, the appellant explained the manufacturing process and the use or purpose of the back covers, front cover and the middle cover. Had it been a simple case of refund, there was no scope for urging these facts. We may now examine the heading of the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant in the present appeals as: A) Phone covers are correctly classifiable under CTI 8517 7090 (erstwhile) CTI 8517 7990 (prevailing) of the Customs Tariff. B) Phone covers are not classifiable under CTH 3920 under Customs Tariff. C) Without prejudice, specific entry shall prevail over general entry in custom tariff. D) Without prejudice to the classification undertaken by the noisy, the entire case of revenue is unsustainable. E) MEITY notification and exemption notification cannot be relied upon for the purpose of classification. F) Lastly, he submitted that reassessment done by customs officer, contrary to self-asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly exception is where an application has been filed by or on behalf of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs no such fee shall be payable. 10. In support of his submissions, Shri Rakesh Kumar relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of E-BIZ. COM PVT. LTD. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida - 2008 (12) STR 438, where the controversy related to the provisions of Section 86(6) of the Finance Act, 1994 which are pari-materia to the provisions of section 129A (6) of the Act and hence it squarely applies to the present case, the relevant paragraphs of the order are quoted below:- "8. From a bare glance at the above provisions it would appear that the appellant is required to pay fee between one thousand rupees and ten thousand rupees depending on the amount of service tax and interest demanded and penalty levied by any Central Excise Officer. It may not be out of place to mention here that a new sub-section (6A) was also inserted by the said amendment, vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, requiring payment of a fee of five hundred rupees on miscellaneous applications for stay or rectification of mistake application or for any other purp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal once again retreated that the principle of charging fees has already been settled in Gylph International Limited, (supra), and since there is no involvement of any demand of customs duty, interest or levy of penalty, therefore no court fee is payable by the appellant. The earlier orders passed, therefore, clarified that in the case of refund or rebate and where there is no issue of any demand of duty, interest or penalty no court fees shall be charged in filing an appeal before this Tribunal. 12. We have already held that the challenge in the present appeal relates to classification and consequent demand of duty due to denial of exemption benefits. The appellant had chosen to pay the enhanced duty as assessed by the assessing officer at the time of clearance 'under protest', It cannot be said that the present appeals are not relating to demand and therefore no court fees is payable by the appellant. As the appellant had paid in advance the enhanced duty, the department was not required to issue the "Show Cause Notice cum Demand". We agree with the submissions made by the learning AR that quantum of duty assessed, demand of duty and payment of duty are all interrelate....