TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant failed to produce any other evidences in support of their claim for erroneous pricing of Screw Tapping of parts no.935605602000 of Invoice No.KDB-86817 - 4000 pieces - was mentioned as USD 16. 00 per piece as against the FOB price of USD 0.01 per piece. The appellant could not produce any documents to show that the price of Screw Tapping is Re.0.015. Therefore, considering all the above facts and also considering the fact of provisional assessment is not yet finalized, the appellant's claim for refund is premature - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. C/00161/2005 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2015 - R. Periasami, Member (T),J. For the Appellants : Mr S Karthick - No vakalat on file Adv. M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he requisite documents and have also not appeared for hearing. 3. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the refund is premature and is not maintainable ab initio when the order of assessment is not modified as per law relying on the decision in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that they are importing all the parts and components from their principal M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. They imported the subject goods i.e., Screw Tapping, from related party pending SVB finalization of the bills of entry, are assessed provisionally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding finalization of assessment. Despite repeated opportunities, the appellant had not given relevant documents before the Adjudicating authority. They have wrongly contended that the appellant had submitted the relevant documents. Therefore, learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim of the appellant. The appellant had filed refund claim only upon obtaining the remittances from their suppliers. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records, I find that the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) has rejected the claim of the appellant only on the ground that the appellant had not produced any documents to substantiate their claim for refund before the Adjudicating authority. The lower appellate authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
