TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) The appellant, M/s Nokia India Sales Pvt Ltd. 807, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001, filed two refund applications one on 08.10.2015 for Rs. 1,21,94,407.00 (Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lacs Ninety Four Thousand Four Hundred Seven only) and second on 29.10.2015 for Rs. 2,03,04,921.00 (Rupees Two Crore Three Lacs Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty One only) being the excess CVD paid under section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for import of goods viz. Mobile Phones vide Bills of Entry filed between October 2014 to February 2015. Refunds were claimed based on the Hon'ble supreme Court's judgment in the case of M/s SRF Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, Civil Appeal No. 9440 of 2003 passed on 26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the Bills of Entry. The appellant vide their letters stated that "There is no requirement to submit re-assessed BOEs for claiming refund of excess duty paid by the claimant under the Customs Act, hence there is no obligation on the company to get BOEs re-assessed for the purpose of claiming the excess CVD Paid". The appellant also submitted Duplicate copies of Bs/E and Chartered Accountant's Certificate. 3. During adjudication, the ld. adjudicating authority took the view, in the terms of CBEC's Circular No. 24/2004-Cus dated 18.03.2004 on the issue as to whether refunds arising out of Customs Assignment should be taken up by filing a refund application or by challenging the original assessment orders, that when the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant's own case in Customs Appeal No. 11639, 11640 of 2017-SM vide its judgment dated 03.06.2019 has held that appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of the concessional rate of CVD prescribed under Sr. No. 263A(ii) of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. ii. A similar view was also taken in the case of M/s Sony India Private Limited vs. COC(Import), New Delhi in Customs Appeal No. 51815/2016 and Customs Appeal No. 51899/2016 vide judgment dated 28.11.2016 iii. It is submitted that Delhi Commissionerate in the case of one of the Assessees i.e. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vide its Order-in-Original No. 176/AKS/2021 dated 19.01.2022 held that assessee is entitled to claim the concessional rate of CVD. i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same for another period. Reliance is placed on: * Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner [2005 (186) E.LT. 266 (S.C.)] * Steel Authority of India vs Collector of Customs, Bombay [2000 (115) E.L.T. 42 (S.C.)] viii. Therefore, on this short ground itself, the appellant states that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. B. Judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of Prashrav Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (338) E.L.T. 44 (Mad.)] is not applicable in the present case i. It is submitted by the appellant that the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (338) E.L.T. 44 (Mad.)] is not applicable in the present case as the said judgment was pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rised Representative of the Revenue submits that the assessment of the Bills of Entry has not been challenged by the appellant and therefore, without re-assessment or amendment of the said Bills of Entry, the refund claims filed by the appellant are not sustainable as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV [2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.)]. 8. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 9. We find that in this case, the sole issue pertains to rejection of refund claims by the authorities below in respect of Bills of Entry filed. The appellant have not challenged the assessment of the Bills of Entry and without challenging the assessment, have filed the refund claim....