TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the Larger Bench in the reference made by the Banglaore Bench in the case of Faxtel Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C., Cochin - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 515 (Tri. - Bang.) = 2003 (56) RLT 652 (CEGAT-Ban.). The learned Chartered Accountant for the appellants informs that the Larger-Bench has not yet decided the reference. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that on this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been claimed seeking classification under heading 85.36 whereas the appellants have not appealed against the assessment in the Bill of Entry (B/E) which classified the impugned goods under heading 85.48. This is a case, where assessment has been done on the B/E without issuing a Show Cause Notice to the appellants, without hearing them and without passing an appealable adjudication order. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal against the same and depending on their success in such appeal, get a consequential refund. 4. In the instant case, no appealable order has been issued. The appellants have paid duty 'in pursuance of an order of an assessment' on the B/E. They have subsequently filed a refund claim within the time limit prescribed under Section 27. In a similar case, the Apex Court has ruled vide Karnataka Po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in his appeal. If no such appealable order has been issued at the stage of initial assessment of the B/E, the assessee can take recourse to filing a refund claim under Section 27 and seek a reassessment. To deny an assessee the option to seek reassessment through a refund claim under Section 27, where no appealable order has been passed while assessing the B/E, would render Section 27 redundant a....