SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The Court : The stand taken on behalf of the customs authorities is inexplicable and completely without basis.
(2.) The petitioner imported spinal needles for medical use. The assessed bill of entry permitted exemption of the additional duty (equivalent to sales tax) under Notification No. 21/2012 as would be evident from the bill of entry for home consumption. However, though the petitioner claimed the benefit under Notification No. 12/2012 pertaining to the countervailing duty, the concerned Assistant Commissioner at the initial stage declined to allow the exemption under Notification No. 12/2012. The petitioner paid all the charges and duties as demanded for the release of the goods before preferring an appeal. In the relevant appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, the reliefs claimed were as follows : "a. The assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs in respect of Bill of Entry No. 4965515, dated 21st March, 2014 be set aside. b. Exemption claimed by the appellant on the imported goods be allowed under Notification No. 12/2012 Sl. No. 309(I). c. Enhanced duty of Rs. 9,01,878/- on account of denial of exemption be set aside and said amount be paid by the appellant under protest be refunded along with interest."
(3.) The appellate order of August 5, 2014 discussed the matter and noticed that before final assessment, the assessing authority had certain queries which were responded to by the assessee by claiming, inter alia, the benefit under Notification No. 12/2012 [serial no. 309(i)]. Since the appeal pertained to the refund of the sum of Rs. 9,01,878/-, which was the aggregate of all the duty obtained in derogation of Notification No. 12/2012, the appellate authority discussed only such aspect of the matter and noted, inter alia, as follows : "The assessing authority assessed the bill of entry no.4965515 dated 21-3-2014 rejecting the benefit under Notification No. 12/2012 C.Ex., dated 17-3-2012 without passing a speaking order resulting excess duty of Rs. 9,01,878/- had to pay by the appellant (sic.). Hence, this appeal." ;