9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a refund claim for Rs. 4,89,057/- on 24-8-2012 under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 in respect of Special Additional duty of Customs (in short "SAD") paid under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the import of goods against BE Nos. 6679297, dated 28-4-2012, 6679459, dated 28-4-2012, 686078 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of out of charge given by the Superintendent (Customs), ICD, Loni in case BE No. 6679459, dated 28-4-2012 which is 22-5-2012. As such the goods sold on Invoice No. 19, dated 19-5-2012 are not the same as imported by the respondent against the said BE. 3. The appellant submitted before Commissioner (Appeals) that the duty on goods against BE No. 6679459, dated 28-4-2012 was paid vide TR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he allowed the Revenue's appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Ms. Prabjoti, K. Chandha learned advocate and Shri B.B. Sharma learned AR. I find that the only dispute is that when the goods were cleared by the customs on 22-5-2012, how can the appellant raise the invoice on 19-5-2012. From the said facts, Commissioner (Appeals) has concluded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n passing out of charge order or in clearance of the imported goods, the invoice raised by them on 19-5-2012 cannot be held to be an invoice in respect of the some other goods. The original adjudicating authority has examined the said invoice and found the goods mentioned therein are relatable to the imported goods. There is no evidence on record indicating that the goods sold by 19 May 2012 invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
