2024 (10) TMI 1553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... KOL/CUS(Port)/AKR/289/2021 dated 17.03.2021 wherein the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to re-examine the matter afresh. Aggrieved against the decision, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant, M/s. Gattani Industries, Assam, has filed the following Bills of Entry for importation of 'Kanyin Face Veneer': -   Bill of Entry & date Benefit of exempted duties denied by Customs on re-assessment (i) 5091772 dated 03.04.2014 Rs.80,720/- (ii) 4806146 dated 04.03.2014 Rs.3,24,381/- (iii) 4613144 dated 11.02.2014 Rs.82,107.60/-   TOTAL Rs.4,87,208.60 2.1. The Appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal was also accepted by the Department. 2.4. Consequent to the Tribunal's Order, the refund amount of Rs.4,87,208/- was sanctioned and paid to the Appellant on 23.12.2019. 3. In the meantime, another Show Cause Notice came to be issued to the appellant on 11.07.2018 alleging that the refund claim filed by the appellant on 27.04.2018, on the basis of the Order-in-Appeal dated 02.03.2017 was hit by limitation. The said notice was adjudicated and the Ld. Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/AC/892/ARS/2018 dated 24.09.2019 sanctioned the refund claimed by the appellant. The Ld. Adjudicating authority also found that there was no unjust enrichment existed in this case, even though this issue was not raised in the Not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant submits that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is illegal and not tenable. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. We find that the Appellant has filed the above said Bills of Entry by claiming the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011. However, while re-assessing the said Bills of Entry in RMS, the benefit of exemption as envisaged in the said Notification was not allowed. This mistake was rectified by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal dated 02.03.2017, as per Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. The stay application filed by the department again....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeal dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who has allowed re-assessment within the meaning of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. This would mean that the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 existing at the time of the Bills of Entry is available to the appellant and hence the excess payment made by them is liable to be refunded. We also observe that the stay application filed by the Department against the order dated 02.03.2017 has been rejected by the CESTAT. Thus, there was no bar in implementation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning the refund claimed by the Appellant. 8.1. We observe that the Show Cause N....