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 →

M/s. Continental Construction Ltd. Versus C.C., New Delhi

2015 (11) TMI 1156 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Refund claim - At the time of filing of Bills of Entry, the appellant did not claim the benefit of nil rate of duty - Notification No. 21/2002 [serial No. 399 (iv)] - The appellant filed a refund claim for refund of the customs duty paid on the construction materials and spare parts used in setting up of Mega Power Project on the ground that it was eligible for nil rate of duty applicable to the said project - Held that:- it is obvious that contrary to what has been claimed by the appellant, at .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. CC, Delhi (2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT) are clearly not applicable to the present case, because in those cases duty was paid due to ignorance. Indeed, in the circumstances of this case, the judgements of Supreme Court in the cases of C.C. Vs. M/s. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Priya Blue Vs. CC (Prev.) (2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) are squarely applicable and the appellant cannot be grante .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n-Appeal dated 30.10.2009 which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 11.08.2009 in terms of which the appellants refund claim for ₹ 2,88,51,903/- was rejected. 2. The facts of the case are as under:- The appellant filed a refund claim for refund of the customs duty paid on the construction materials and spare parts used in setting up of Mega Power Project on the ground that it was eligible for nil rate of duty applicable to the said project. It had imported the said materials at concessiona .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

S.No.400), dated 01.03.2002, nor did it produce the requisite documents/certificates required for being eligible for the said benefit. The Bills of Entry were thus finally assessed allowing the benefit claimed by the appellant under project import in terms of Notification No.21/2002 [S.No.399 (iv)], dated 01.03.2002. Therefore, the refund claim filed on the ground that as per Notification No.21/2002 (Sr.No.400) it was eligible for nil rate of duty was rejected by the concerned Asst. Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly mentioned serial number is 399 (iv) (instead of 400) of the Notification. (ii) The Order-in-Original clearly states that the imports were duly registered under project import and therefore the assessing authority should have assessed the Bills of Entry provisionally. (c) It cited judgements of Bombay High Court in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2009 (240) ELT 490 (Bom.)] and Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. CC, Delhi [2010 (250) ELT 030 (Del.)] .....

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