9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri M K Mall, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal under which refund claims filed for refund of SAD in terms of Notification No. 102/2007 dt. 14.9.2007 have been rejected. 2. The facts are that the appellant imported Styrene Monomer which is a bulk commodity and hazardous. Under Public Notice No. 55/2004 dt. 31.8.2004, the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt clearances of the goods was allowed in terms of the said Public Notice. The objection of Revenue to sanctioning of the SAD refund is that the date of invoices under which the part clearances were sold are prior to the date of final Out-of-Charge given for the entire consignment, in the EDI system. Therefore, the refund was rejected on the ground that the appellant could not have sold the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge is given is totally fallacious and contradictory to the Public Notice issued by the Commissioner himself. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone on a tangent and held that the appellant could not have sold the goods which were not in his possession. It is clear from the Public Notice that the goods will be in the possession of the appellant once the part clearance is allowed. The appellant have pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
