Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

C.C. (Import & General) , New Delhi Versus Sigma Freudenburg Noke Pvt. Ltd.

2015 (10) TMI 1721 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Rejection of refund claim Special Additional Duty Primary adjudicating authority rejected refund claim of respondent on ground that respondent had taken credit of SAD and therefore was ineligible for refund thereof in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus Commissioner by disagreeing with view of adjudicating authority, remanded case back to process, quantify and sanction refund Held that:- Order of Commissioner amounts to remanding case to primary adjudicating authority which Commissione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-2015 - Hon ble Mr. R. K. Singh, Technical Member And Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Judicial Member, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rajeev Tandon, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Sudeep Singh with Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocates ORDER Per R.K. Singh: This appeal was filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.6.2010. 2. The facts of the case are as under: The primary adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim of the respondent who was importer as well as dealer of the goods imported .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peals) while disagreeing with the primary authority s order observed that From the perusal of sample invoices pertaining to the subject refund claim and submitted at the time of personal hearing, it is clear that the appellant issued cenvatable invoices showing details of duties separately under headings and it does not contain amount of Additional Duty of Customs. The sum total of all duties shown separately is given as passed on to the buyer. Further every invoice bears the statutory declrarat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

only on scrutiny of sample invoices, and that the very fact that credit of SAD was taken in RG 23D register disqualified the respondent for the refund thereof. It also contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) in effect has remanded the case to the lower adjudicating authority while the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was taken away with effect from 11.5.2001 by amendment to the Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Ld. Advocate for the respondent on the other hand stated that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der: ORDER In view of the above discussion & findings, I hereby reject the above said three refund claims totaling to ₹ 1,110,749.94 filed by M/s Sigma Freudenberg Nok Pvt. Ltd, Plot No.12, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon 122015, under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No.102/07-Customs dated 14.09.2007, as amended. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has ordered as under: (7) In view of the above , the impugned order is set aside and the concerned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version