Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Lakshmi Electrical Control ... vs Cc, Chennai on 23 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/470/2002
(Arising out of Order in Appeal C.Cus No. 329/02 dated 31.07.02, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
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 the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
M/s. Lakshmi Electrical Control Systems Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CC, Chennai : Respondent
Appearance Shri T. Ramesh, Adv., for the appellant Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 23.07.09 Date of decision : 23.07.09 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The claim for refund of Rs. 49,084/- claimed by the appellants herein for duty paid on certain goods short-landed has been rejected by the authorities below on the ground that shortage was detected subsequent of the clearance from the customs charge, while short-landing of goods is to be established prior to the clearance from the customs charge.
2. We have heard both sides on the appeal against the refund. Admittedly, the importers did not challenge the assessment on the entire quantity covered under the Bill of Entry by filing an appeal against the assessment of duty on the entire quantity although the entire quantity was not supplied. Therefore, the claim for refund cannot be entertained in the light of the apex Court judgment in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2004 (172) ELT 145 (S.C.), which has been followed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the Commissioner Vs. Entotex Industries and Exports Ltd. 2007 (216) ELT 137 (Tri.-LB). In this view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
3