JINDAL SAW LTD. Vs. C.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the order in appeal -dated 7.4.2005 wherein the revenue's appeal has been allowed setting aside the orders in original that allowed refund to the appellants. Since the issues involved in both the cases are same both the appeals are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported consignments of shots and grits and filed Bills of entries for home clearance, which were assessed as requested by the appellant. Subsequently a refund claim was filed by the appellant stating that they had paid excess duty. The said refund claim was scrutinized by the lower authorities and allowed. Revenue preferred appeals against the said orders, which were allowed by the appellate authority on the ground that once the Bill of Entries has been finally assessed then the route of the refund claim cannot be taken for the reassessment of the Bill of entries. Hence these appeals by the appellants.

(3.) THE learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the order in appeal passed is not correct in as much that the appeal filed before the appellate authority is not proper. It is his submission that the Commissioner's review order is faulty and it cannot be termed as an order of review. He draws my attention to the said order submits that the said order has title of "Authorisation" which can be giver only after review order is passed under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. It is his submission that if there is no review order then the appeal filed would fall on its own. On merits he submits that the appellant has filed the bill of entry and had by mistake paid excess duty and the order in original has corrected the mistake as provided under Section 154 of the Customs Act. It is his submission that the refund claimed due to corrections as contemplated in Section 154 cannot be construed as reassessment of Bill of entry. He relies upon the following case laws: