Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Ace Designers Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals) on 23 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(118)ECC438, 2007ECR438(TRI.-BANGALORE)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. C/Cus/90 dated 27.12.2004 by which the appellant's refund application seeking refund of Special Addition Duty (SAD) paid on re-imported goods is required to be refunded in terms of Notification No. 94/96 Cus. dated 16.12.1996. However, their plea was rejected and the refund application was not accepted.
2. The learned Counsel submits that the issue is covered by this Bench judgment rendered in their own case by Final Order No. 492-494/2006 dated 27.01.2006. He also relies on the ruling of CC and CE, Hyderabad v. Lokesh Machine Ltd. 2006 (74) RLT 935 (CESTAT-Ban.). He also relies on the ruling rendered in the case of Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd. v. CC, Mangalore 2006 (74) RLT 937 with regard to the point that refund can be claimed even without challenging the assessment of bill of entry. He points out that this judgment has dealt with the Apex Court ruling rendered in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (40) RLT 131 (SC) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC (Preventive) 2004 (64) RLT 321(SC) relied by the revenue to hold that both are distinguishable in the light of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. UOI - .
3. The learned JDR reiterates the department's submission that bill of entry had been finally assessed and the same has not been challenged. He relied on the citations of CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (supra).
4. We have carefully considered the submissions and find that revenue's appeal in similar orders passed against the assessee was disposed by this bench by final order No. 492 to 494/2006 dated 27.1.2006, wherein the refund claim has been held to be eligible and payable to the assessee. With regard to the point raised by the learned JDR that the bill of entry had been finally assessed and the same has not been appealled, the tribunal in the case of Jindal Vijayanagar Steels (supra) had dealt with this point and has disposed of the matter in the light of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (supra). As the issue is settled by the above noted judgment, there is no reason to take a different view. Following the ratio of the cited judgment, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)