Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 450 - CESTAT MUMBAIDenial of refund claim - SAD - Signature not verified - Held that:- only ground for rejecting the refund is that the agreement between the importer and the consignment agent does not contain the signature of the witnesses - As per the copy of the Agreement, it bears signatures of both the importer, being the first party, and the consignment agent being the second party. There is no requirement in the statutory provisions that the Agreement should bear the signatures of the witnesses. In fact, the notification providing for refund does not require that the appellant should submit a copy of the agreement. The finding of Commissioner (Appeals) is indeed very strange and totally unwarranted. In the circumstances, the appellant have submitted all required documents for processing and sanctioning of the refund claim. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|