Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cus., Chennai on 23 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(142)ELT191(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. Application for early hearing was considered and allowed as the issue lies in a short compass.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, while remanding the case to the original authority for de novo consideration on the ground that there is violation of Principles of Natural Justice and for not passing a speaking order on the classification has also held that the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) was justified in rejecting the Refund claim for different reasons. The appellants are aggrieved with this portion of the findings and seek for setting aside the same so that the matter which has been demanded for re-determining the classification could be reconsidered along with this issue and that the question of refund claim could be examined by the Asstt. Commissioner (Refund) thereafter. As their refund claim was filed well within the time they considered that they should not be denied an opportunity of hearing by outright rejection of their claim.
2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants the ld. Counsel submits that their claim for refund was filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act and it was within time and therefore it could not have been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner (Refund), although the Deputy Commissioner of the group had not given a speaking order on the classification aspects. She further submits that both are independent provisions and therefore the order holding that the rejection of Refund claim by the lower authority not correct and the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) is not proper.
3. Appearing for the Revenue the ld. SDR reiterates the department's findings.
4. On a careful consideration, we notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter for de novo consideration to the original authority on the ground that the original authority had not given a speaking order. However, at the same time he has held that the appellant's application filed before the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) was rightly rejected. We are of the considered opinion that this portion of the order is required to be set aside in view of the fact that the Commissioner himself has remanded the matter for de novo consideration with regard to classification issue. In that view of the matter, Appellant's application for refund should be considered after original authority determines the classification issue in view of the fact that the duty has been paid under protest. The impugned order is modified to the extent and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.