Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Indchem Electronics Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 14 September, 2001
JUDGMENT
Jeet Ram Kait, Member (Technical)
1. The appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order-in-appeal No. 29/97 M dated 14.2.1997 on the ground that they have paid initially duty @ 20% B.E.D & 10% S.E.D, whereas in fact duty was required to be paid at 15% BED & 10% SED. They have paid an excess of 5% BED which is being sought as refund claim by the appellant.
2. Ld. Counsel Ms. Mythili has submitted that they had claimed refund of 5% excess duty and has got no connection with the goods sent by them under Rule 173 H which has been wrongly misinterpreted and facts have not been fully appreciated by the earned Commissioner (Appeals). Whereas in the order-in-original they have fully appreciated the facts and the refund claim was granted to them for the same.
3. Heard Ld. SDR who invited our attention to para 7 of the order-in-appeal passed by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and it would therefore be seen that the facts stated by the Ld. Counsel are not in confirmity with the findings recorded by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). He has therefore, no objection if the matter is reconsidered in the light of the facts which the Ld. Counsel has brought to the notice of the Bench.
4. We have considered the matter and find that there is force in the submission made by Ld. Counsel. They are entitled for refund claim of 5% of duty which has been reported by paid excess. But for the factual dispute, the matter requires to be reconsidered in the light of the facts brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel. Therefore we remand the matter back to the original authority to decide the case by giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant and decide the case after taking all the facts on record and after appreciating the evidence produced before him. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Ordered accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court)