TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 368/MCH/AC/Gr. VIIC-II/2012, dated 26-6-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I. 2. The appellant M/s. Steelco Gujarat Ltd., filed a refund claim of ₹ 13,07,924/- on account of differential amount in export incentives. The appellant exported mild steel galvanized she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-4-2000, if the exporter had availed benefit under serial No. 91 in respect of galvanized steel sheets, the benefit should not be denied. It was based on the circular of the DGFT issued on 28-7-2000 that the appellant paid the excess credit taken under protest . Subsequently, when DGFT issued the revised clarification in 2003, they filed the refund claim. The department rejected the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that they have not challenged the original assessment. An identical issue arose in another case of M/s. Jindal Iron and Steel Company, Bombay and based on the direction of the Hon ble High Court of Mumbai, the benefit of higher export incentive was allowed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vide order No. 25/2004/CAC/CC /MUM, dated 16-3-2004. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the exporters who have availed excess credit to reimburse the same to the exchequer along with interest @ 24% and it is further stated that the demand shall be enforced only after positive clarification from the DGFT/Ministry of Finance. Subsequently, vide a circular, dated 28-7-2000 the DGFT clarified that benefit under serial No. 91 would not be available in the case of MS galvanized sheets/st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant has paid the excess amount of export incentives taken under protest . Therefore, without vacating the protest, the department could not have rejected the refund claim which has not been done in the instant case. 5.3 Further, in an identical case pertaining to M/s. Jindal Iron and Steel Company, based on the direction of the Hon ble Bombay High Court, the benefit under serial No. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
