SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order -in -appeal, dated 23 -10 -2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has reversed the order -in -original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, dated 16 -2 -2001 allowing refund of Rs. 3,40,156/ -to them.

(2.) The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported one consignment of thermo plastic polyurethane resin against Bill of Entry, dated 6 -8 -86 and paid duty at standard rate at 100% CBD + 40% Ayd. + 40% CV and cleared the goods for home consumption. The Bill of Entry was assessed finally under Section 17 of the Act and duty was paid at the above said rate by the appellants without any protest. Later on, they filed refund claim before the lower authority on the ground that their goods were entitled for concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 345/86 -Cus, dated 16 -6 -86 by virtue of which the duty rate was to be 30% CBD + Ayd Nil + CV Nil. The excess duty paid by them was to the tune of Rs. 3,40,156/ -. Initially the refund claim of the appellants was rejected by the adjudicating authority as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals). But the Tribunal set aside those orders and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). The entire matter was then ultimately remanded back to the lower authorities with certain directions. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, passed order, dated 16 -2 -2001 vide which he allowed the refund of the disputed amount to the appellants.

(3.) Before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the above said order of the adjudicating authority, two appeals were preferred, one by the Revenue questioning the validity of the order on merits on the ground that the refund was not admissible under the law. The second appeal was filed by the present appellants who still felt dis -satisfied with the order -in -original to the extent of disallowance of the interest on the refund amount to them. The Commissioner (Appeals) had disposed of both those appeals through a common order -in -appeal which has been challenged now by the appellants.