Jindal Polyester Ltd. Vs. Cce

Jindal Polyester Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 01, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36668

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/36668
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj, M T K.C.
Decided On: Oct 01, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jindal Polyester Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(98)ECC297

Excerpt

1. in this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal, vide which the commissioner of customs (appeals) has confirmed the order-in-original disallowing the refund claim of the appellants.2. the facts are not much in dispute. the appellants are 100% eou engaged in the manufacture of bopet film. they were allowed duty clearance 25% of the production in value. since they made dta clearances after getting due permission in advance, the same were to be adjusted ultimately by working their total entitlement of the dta clearance. they had been denied this benefit on the ground that their dta clearances in terms of the quantity were not up to the requirement.at the time of de-bonding, they were called upon to pay the differential duty and they accordingly paid which was worked out at rs. 28,90,300. thereafter the appellants lodged the refund claim, which had been rejected by the authorities below.3. we find that the order vide which the differential duty was claimed from the appellants, at the time of de-bonding was never challenged by them before the competent authority. that order had, therefore, attained finality. that being so, the ratio of the law laid down by the apex court in cce v. flock (i) pvt. ltd. and priya blue industries ltd. v. cc (preventive) stands in the way of the appellants for claiming the refund. in those cases, it has been ruled that claim for the refund of duty will not be maintainable where the order under which the duty was paid had not been challenged by the assessee. therefore, on this short ground alone, the refund claim of the appellants is liable to be rejected without going into its merits. consequently, the impugned order is maintained though on a different ground and the appeal of the appellants is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal, vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has confirmed the order-in-original disallowing the refund claim of the appellants.

2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Bopet film. They were allowed duty clearance 25% of the production in value. Since they made DTA clearances after getting due permission in advance, the same were to be adjusted ultimately by working their total entitlement of the DTA clearance. They had been denied this benefit on the ground that their DTA clearances in terms of the quantity were not up to the requirement.

At the time of de-bonding, they were called upon to pay the differential duty and they accordingly paid which was worked out at Rs. 28,90,300. Thereafter the appellants lodged the refund claim, which had been rejected by the authorities below.

3. We find that the order vide which the differential duty was claimed from the appellants, at the time of de-bonding was never challenged by them before the competent authority. That order had, therefore, attained finality. That being so, the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in CCE v. Flock (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries ltd. v. CC (Preventive) stands in the way of the appellants for claiming the refund. In those cases, it has been ruled that claim for the refund of duty will not be maintainable where the order under which the duty was paid had not been challenged by the assessee. Therefore, on this short ground alone, the refund claim of the appellants is liable to be rejected without going into its merits. Consequently, the impugned order is maintained though on a different ground and the appeal of the appellants is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Jindal Polyester Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge P Bajaj, M T K.C.