Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Karan Associates vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Imports) on 15 February, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No.II APPEAL No.C/978/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.52/2007 Misc.ACC dated 31/07/2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : authorities?
====================================================
Karan Associates Appellants
Vs.
The Commissioner of Customs (Imports),
Mumbai Respondents
Appearance:
Ms.Shilpa Balani, Advocate for Appellants
Shri.S.G.Dewalwar, SDR for Respondents
CORAM:
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing : 15/02/2008
Date of decision : 15/02/2008
O R D E R No:..
Per: Shri M.V.Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.52/2007 Misc. ACC dated 31/07/2007, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. It is undisputed that the appellants herein filed Bill of Entry for the clearances of electronic parts, integrated circuits and regulators. The said bill of entry was assessed by the assessing officer. While doing such assessments, the lower authorities enhanced the value. The appellants on such enhanced value discharged the duty liability as was assessed in the Bill of Entry and cleared the consignment. Subsequently, noticing that they were not given any reasons and evidence for the enhancement of the value of the clearances, appellants filed a refund claim for the amount of differential duty paid by them, due to such enhancement of the value and concurrently requested the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order in respect of the very same bill of entry. The status of request for speaking order is still unknown while the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants on the ground that the issue is squarely covered by the judgement and order of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd., Vs. CC (P) as reported at 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). In the first round of litigation the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the lower authorities to consider the case law of Tribunal as reported at 2003 (158) ELT 640 (Tri-Mum). In the denovo proceedings, lower authorities have came to the a very same conclusion. I find nothing wrong in the said conclusion.
4. It is a fact that the appellant did not challenge the final assessment of the bill of entry. Having not challenged, such assessments had attained finality. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue (supra) had clearly laid down the law, that the route of refund claim is not available to an assessee for challenging finally ` assessed bill of entry. As such, I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by the judgement and order of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries (supra).
5. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected and the impugned order is upheld.
(Dictated in Court) (M. V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) pj 1 3 2