9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4% SAD paid in respect of imported goods cleared vide Bill of Entry No. 2160198, dated 1-9-2010. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim on the finding as reproduced below : "6. I have gone through the records of the case, the documents submitted by the importer as also the oral submissions made during the course of Personal Hearing. It is clear that the importer has failed to submit all the documents required for processing the refund claim. Keeping in view of the said Notification and said Circular, I pass the following order." 3. In the finding, the adjudicating authority has not specifically pointed out which document was not submitted. But in the facts it is narrated as below : "5. Since the importer had not sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant were not correlate with the balance sheet which was already submitted by the appellant. Therefore, their refund claim of Rs. 1,61,794/- was rejected by the lower authority. 10. I further find from the reply on the ground of appeal by the respondent that the contentions made by the appellant are wrong. Infect, it has been clearly mentioned in para 4 of the order in original that Shri Mithun Pithiya attended the personal hearing on 22-12-2011 on behalf of the M/s. Berg Trading Pvt. Ltd. The refund claim has been rejected for the reasons that the documents submitted by the appellant at the time of personal hearing and thereafter could not be co-related. The appeal deserves to be rejected on this ground alone." Hence th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.K. Mall, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that as regards the VAT payment, the appellant has not submitted the profit and loss account. Therefore, it cannot be established whether the VAT/CST was paid in respect of the goods sold. In the absence of such evidence, the appellant is not entitled for the refund. 6. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. In the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority, though after giving a finding, rejected the plea. In the said finding, no specific document was pointed out. Therefore, on the basis of mere statement without discussing about an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
