COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. SHRI DURGA CHEMICALS INDS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE filed this appeal against the Order -in -Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/I&G/D -I/85/08 dated 22.02.2008, whereby Adjudication Order was set aside and refund was allowed subject to verification of factor of unjust enrichment.

(2.) AFTER hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the respondents at the time of assessment of Bill of Entry contended that the goods were not chargeable to additional duty of Customs. But the concerned Assessing Group assessed the Bill of Entry on higher rate of duty, which was duly paid by the respondents. They have not filed appeal against assessed Bill of Entry. But, the respondents filed the refund claim, which was rejected by the Original authority. Commissioner (appeals) set aside adjudication Order.

(3.) LD . Advocate relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Faxtel Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Cochin reported in, 2004 (169) ELT 265 (Tribunal -LB). He also relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of PPN Power Generating Co. P. Ltd. v. CC (Seaport), Chennai reported in and I.P. Rings Ltd. v. CC (Air), Chennai reported in, 2006 (202) ELT 61 (Tribunal -Chennai), whereby it has been held that the refund claim on the basis of the assessed Bill of Entry is maintainable. Ld. Advocate also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC & CE, Visakhapatnam v. Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. Reported in He further submits that no speaking order was issued to them for filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).