Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (9) TMI 142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - 2015 (320) E.L.T. 779 (Bom.) - Claim for refund - Respondent had imported 20 Rolls Colour Graphic film and filed Bill of entry for assessable value under CTH 3702 However refund claim of respondent was rejected Tribunal by impugned order allowed claim of assesse by upholding order of commissioner Held that:- undisputedly tribunal had directed Commissioner (Appeals) to examine issue as to whether respondents/assessee makes out case and remanded for fre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e authorities and as such no substantial question of law arises Thus, Appeal rejected Decide against revenue. - Customs Appeal No. 87 of 2014 - Dated:- 30-3-2015 - B.R. Gavai and A.S. Gadkari, JJ. Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sujay Kantawala a/w Ms. Brijesh Pathak, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant Revenue has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned CESTAT dated 24-12-2013 thereby dismissing the appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

claim was rejected. Being aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Appellate Authority vide order dated 16-10-2000 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority on the ground that the adjudicating authority had disqualified the refund claim without considering the documentary evidence submitted by the respondents. On remand, the original authority vide order dated 23-10-2003 sanctioned the refund amount of ₹ 11,95,219/- under S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CESTAT. The CESTAT vide its order dated 29-4-2005 set aside the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) and referred the case back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for fresh decision only for decision on the issue of unjust enrichment, after examining all relevant documentary evidence produced by the respondents herein and to pass fresh order after hearing the parties afresh. Vide order dated 19-10-2005, the original authority Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the claim of assessee and reje .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment order at an appellate or revisional stage, claim for refund could not have been entertained. The learned Counsel relies on the various judgment including the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Aurangabad Paper Mills v. Union of India reported in 2013 (298) E.L.T. 214 (Bom.) to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) is a party. 6. Shri Kantawala, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that appeal arises purely out of the concurrent orders passed by the three authorities. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version