2026 (4) TMI 679

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The fact, in brief, is that the respondent M/s Vibhutigudda Mines (P) Ltd., exported iron ore fines under Shipping Bill No.44/2008-09 dated 15.07.2008 declaring FOB value at USD 120 PDMT. Accordingly, the respondent paid export duty @ 15%. The Department however sought enhancement of value based on contemporaneous exports to USD @ 136 PDMT. The respondent, under protest deposited additional duty and subsequently filed refund claim relying upon CBEC Circular No. 18/2008-CUS dated 10.11.2008 which clarified that FOB price is to be treated as Cum-duty price. 3. The Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 35/2009 R dated 16.03.2009 rejected the refund claim on the ground that the assessment order had not been challenged and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner has subsequently passed OIO No. 03/2015(Cus)(R) dated 14.07.2015 and recorded that he was implementing OIA No. 6/2013(G)(Cus) dated 27.08.2013, reassessed shipping bill and sanctioned refund of excess Export duty but did not sanctioned payment of interest for the delay. Thereafter, respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and directed to pay interest also. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that the Customs Department has accepted the adjudication order for re-assessment of Shipping Bill and refund of excess duty paid. Consequently, the said order has attained finality. 9. Learned Counsel for respondent also submits that if an order has not....