Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Kolkata(Port) vs Aditya Birla Chemicals India Ltd on 16 May, 2023
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.1
Customs Appeal No.76113 of 2015
Customs Appeal No.76114 of 2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.Kol/Cus(Port)/AM/069/2015 dated 21.08.2015
passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata)
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001
Appellant
VERSUS
M/s Aditya Birla Chemicals India Ltd.
Garhwa Road, Rehla, Dist.-Palamu, Jharkhand-822124
Respondent
APPERANCE :
Shri Manish Mohan, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri Depro Sen & Shri Shovit Betal, both Advocates CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR.RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 76115-76116/2023 DATE OF HEARING : 16 .05.2023 DATE OF DECISION : 16.05.2023 Per Ashok Jindal :
The Revenue has filed these two appeals against the same impugned order wherein the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) gave the benefit of the Notification No.6/2011-Cus (Sl.No.6) dated 07.02.2011 to the respondents..
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent imported Barium Carbonate from China and filed the Bills of Entry and assessed the duty themselves. The respondent claimed that the impugned goods were to be assessed as per Sl.No.7 of Notification No.6/2011-Cus dated 07.02.2011, whereby they paid the Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) @ US$ 236 per MT whereas they were entitled for the benefit of clearance of 2 Customs Appeal No.76113,76114/15 the said goods at Sl.No.6 of the above said Notification wherein the ADD was to be paid @ UD$ 76.06 per MT. The respondent found a mistake. Accordingly, they filed appeals before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), who gave the benefit of the Notification at Sl.No.6. Against the said order, the Revenue is before us.
3. The ld.A.R. for the Appellant Revenue, submits that the respondent did not declare that the said goods are to be levied ADD in self-declaration, but while assuming, a query was raised in EDI System stating that the said goods are liable to ADD in terms of Notification No.6/2011-Cus dated 07.02.2011 and in reply to the query, the respondents themselves paid ADD in terms of Sl.No.7 of the said Notification and did not raise any objection and duty was also paid without any protest, thereafter, claiming that the that the duty is to be paid in terms of Sl.No.6 of the said Notification, is afterthought. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.
4. Heard the ld.A.R. for the Revenue and perused the records.
5. We find that it is no doubt that the respondent was entitled to take the benefit of Notification No.6/2011-Cus dated 07.02.2011 at Sl.No.6. Although, initially, the respondent paid the duty in terms of Sl.No.7 of the said Notification. The said order was challenged before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), who gave the benefit of the Notification No.6/2011-Cus dated 07.02.2011 at Sl.No.6 and duty was asked to pay at the rate of US$ 76.06 per MT. In fact, at the time of assessment of the Bills of Entry, it is the duty of the adjudicating authority to assess the goods properly, which was not done by the adjudicating authority 3 Customs Appeal No.76113,76114/15 and later on, the same was challenged by the respondent before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), who had assessed the impugned goods.
6. In that circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order, the same are upheld.
7. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court ) Sd/ (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sd/ (Rajeev Tandon) mm Member (Technical)