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 →

Commissioner of Customs, Pune Versus M/s. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, Mumbai

2015 (11) TMI 1324 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Denial of refund claim - Excess duty paid - Held that:- Though the Revenue has filed appeal against this Tribunal order dated 5/9/2013 but no stay has been granted by Honble Mumbai High Court. It is also observed that implementing the Tribunal order, Revenue has already sanctioned the refund therefore I do not understand why the consequential relief of the refund i.e. interest should not be given to the assessee. Even as per the CBEC Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX dated 1/1/2013, if the Revenue is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order; hence, the same is sustained - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/89783/14 & Application No. C/EH/93979/15 - Dated:- 3-8-2015 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Respondent : Shri D.K. Sinha, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The respondent filed early hearing application, however the appeal itself is listed in routine therefore early hearing application become infructuous and hereby dismissed. These two app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

acility being set up by M/s. Dabhol Power Company. In connection with the said dredging work, the appellant had imported a Dredging vessel named M.V. Vicotria Island vide Bill of Entry No. 1292 dated 10/1/2001 and paid Custom duty of ₹ 42,14,228/- on the entire quantity of bunkers of the said vessel comprising of 6,70,375 litres of Fuel Oil and 47,059 litres of Lube Oil vide Challan No. 608 and Cash No. 557 dated 16/3/2001. On completion of the dredging work, the said vessel was re-exporte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order-in-original. Thereafter the respondent filed appeal before the CESTAT which was allowed with consequential relief. In order to Honour CESTAT order refund of ₹ 31,17,091/- was sanctioned vide order-in-original No. DIV/Dapoli/3/13-14 and paid on 1/1/2014. The respondent made request for grant of interest on the delayed sanction of refund claim. The adjudicating authority vide order-in-original dated 27/2/2014 held that the respondent are not eli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is before me. 3. Shri V. K. Sinha, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that CESTAT order dated 5/9/2013 by which refund was allowed has been challenged before the Hon ble High Court of Mumbai and the same is pending. Therefore the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should not have passed the impugned order till the disposal of the department s appeal by the Hon ble High court. He prays that the order may be set aside and the matter be remanded to the original author .....

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