Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Kamdhenu Global Ltd vs The Commissioner on 11 April, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench Single Member Bench Court I Appeal No: C/20032/2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.61/2013(H-II)CUS. dated 23-10-2013 passed by Commissioner of C&CE(Appeals-II) Hyderabad) For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member(Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s Kamdhenu Global Ltd New Delhi. ..Appellant(s) Vs. The Commissioner. C&C.E, Hyderabad-II ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri R.Muralidhar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri N.Mohammed Ali, AR for the Respondent Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing : 11/04/2016 Date of decision: 11/04/2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.]
1. The appellants imported sun flower cake and while presenting the Bill of entry on 21-12-2012, they failed to take into account the exemption of customs duty granted vide Notification No.12/2012-Cus, dated 17-03-2012 as amended by Notification No.47/2012, dated 21-08-2012 r/w corrigendum dated 24-08-2012. This resulted in the appellant paying excess duty of Rs.7,29,846/-. They then filed refund claim for the excess duty paid. The claim was rejected by the Original authority stating that appellant has not fulfilled Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 and also has not challenged the assessment before any appellate Forum as laid in Priya Blue Industries case 2004(172) ELT 45(SC). The appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and vide the order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection. Hence this appeal.
2. The same issue came up for consideration before this tribunal in the case of Shyam Solvex (I)Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad II and vide final order No.A/30190/2016, dated 22-03-2016, the Tribunal following the ratio laid in Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills Vs CCE Nagpur 2015(327)ELT718(Tri-Mum) held the issue in fav-or of the appellant. Applying the ratio laid in the case of Shyam Solvex and Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills, I hold that appellant is eligible for refund.
3. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Pronounced in open court) ( SULEKHA BEEVI. C.S.) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) dks 2