Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Motor Industries Co. Ltd vs Cc (Sea Imp.), Chennai on 19 January, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
C/34/2006
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 840/2005 dated 30.11.2005, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member
M/s. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CC (Sea Imp.), Chennai : Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Kannan, Adv., for the appellant Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR), for the respondent CORAM Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member Date of Hearing/Decision : 19.01.2015 FINAL ORDER No. 40055 / 2015 The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported Mini Relays under Bill of Entry no. 691527 dated 29.09.2004 and paid customs duty as per the invoice price and cleared the goods. Subsequently, the appellants filed refund claim on 31.12.2004 on the ground that the invoice price wrongly stated as USD 22.80 instead of correct price of USD 2.88. The AC (Refunds) vide letter dated 15.03.2005 informed to the appellants that in view of the Honble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Priya Blue Industries Vs. CC - 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC) and CC Vs. Flock (I) Pvt. Ltd 2000 (120) ELT 280 (SC), the refund is pre-matured and requested the appellants to approach the concerned assessment group or to challenge assessment made in the Bill of Entry before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants preferred the appeal against the AC (Refunds) letter. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order by relying the Apex Courts judgment in Priya Blue and Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), cases rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence the present appeal.
2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that as per the purchase order, the value of the impugned goods was USD 2.88 inadvertently shown as USD 22.80. They have paid the excess duty of Rs. 15,11,154/-. Hence, they are eligible for refund of excess duty paid by them. Whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal. He submits that even if no appeal filed against the Bill of Entry, they are eligible for the refund of excess duty paid. He relied on the following case laws in support of his contention:
1. Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. CC, Delhi 2010 (250) ELT 30 (Delhi)
2. CC (I & G) N.Delhi Vs. Prima Telecom Ltd 2011 (266) ELT 386 (Tri.-Del.)
3. Little Bee Impex Vs. CC, Amritsar 2013 (293) ELT 226 (Tri.-Del.)
4. CC (Imp.) New Delhi Vs. Biomerieux (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (299) ELT 487 (Tri.-Del.)
5. Commr. Vs. Aman Medical Products Ltd.
2010 (256) ELT A57 (S.C.)
3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that the appellants are fully aware of the Honble Supreme Court judgments in the case of Priya Blue and Flock India (supra), and the same was informed to the appellants by the AC (Refunds) to approach the concerned assessing group or to challenge the original assessment order by preferring appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) instead the appellants chose to file the appeal against the ACs letter. She relied upon the following case laws in support of her arguments.
1. Priya Blue Industries Vs. CC 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC)
2. CC Vs. Flock (I) Pvt. Ltd 2000 (120) ELT 280 (SC),
3. Visa Steel Ltd.Vs. CCE & ST, Bhubaneswar 2013 (298) ELT 323 (Ori.)
4. Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. CC, Ahmedabad 2013 (296) ELT 383 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records. The short issue involved in this appeal relates to the appellants claim of refund of excess duty paid on the imported goods and cleared for home consumption without contesting the assessment made in the Bill of Entry No. 691527 dated 29.09.2004. Both AC (Refunds) and the Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly dismissed the appeal by relying on the Honble Apex Court judgment in the case of Priya Blue and Flock (I) (supra), which was discussed in detail in the impugned order. Since the issue was well settled by the Honble Apex Court, in the above judgements and the said Apex Court decision has been followed by various High Courts and Tribunals and the issue is no longer in dispute. Since the appellants not contented the assessment of duty made in the said Bill of Entry, the AC (refunds) has rightly informed the appellants. By respectfully following the Apex Court decision which is relied by the Lower Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court) (R. PERIASAMI) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 1