2024 (6) TMI 913

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant filed a Bill of Entry under EDI System for payment of Customs duty on import of Anhydrous Ammonia. Consequent upon approval of the self-assessment of the Bill of Entry under Risk Management System and upon payment of Customs duty, the clearance of such goods was allowed for home consumption. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim application stating that the import of Anhydrous Ammonia of Malaysian Origin is liable to preferential rate of Basic Customs Duty @ 2% under Notification No.53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011 as amended, whereas they have paid duty @ 5% on such goods, which is refundable to them. 2.1 The show-cause notices were issued to the appellant on the ground that as the Bills of Entry have been finally assessed in EDI....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2.3 The said orders were challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the orders of the adjudicating authority rejecting refund claims. 2.4 Against the said orders, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant produced the Certificate of Origin issued by the manufacturer of the goods and it is not disputed by the Department that the said Certificate is not genuine and the appellant has complied with the substantial condition of the Notification. Therefore, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to the appellant. He further submits that the subsequent import from the same supplier, on production of the Certificate of Origin, the clearance has been al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umstances, the appellant has not complied with the condition of Notification. Furthermore, he submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV reported in 2019 (368) ELT 216 (S.C.) for challenging the adjudication order in respect of assessment of Bill of Entry, the refund claim cannot be entertained. 6. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 7. We find that initially, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that as the appellant has not challenged the assessment of Bills of Entry in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Priya Blue Industries Limited (supra), therefore, the refund c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplier of the identical goods under the Bills of Entry in question. Therefore, the appellant has subsequently complied with the condition of the Notification. 9. In view of the above circumstances, the benefit of Notification No.53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011, cannot be denied to the appellant as the appellant has complied the subsequent condition of the Notification. 10. In that circumstances, we hold that the appellant is entitled for refund claim as prayed by the appellant. 11. In these terms, after setting aside the impugned orders, we allow the appeals filed by the appellant. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court)   ============= Document 1 PETRONAS CHEMICALS AMMONIA SDN BHD PETRONAS ....