GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (4) TMI 1071 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (4) TMI 1071 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 425 (Tri. - Del.) - Refund claim of interest - Under Section 28AA - Appellant was asked to pay interest on delayed payment of duty under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 29-9-2003, i.e., three months after the date of passing of the Order-in-Original and the Department started processing Bills of Entry in year 2005 and therefore, therefore, he claimed that the interest should not have been demanded and recovered befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot in any way alter the date of determination of duty chargeable which remained the date of the adjudication order. Therefore, refund claim not granted. - Decided against the appellant - C/317/2009 - Final Order No. A/51213/2015-CU(DB) - Dated:- 1-4-2015 - G. Raghuram, President and Shri R.K. Singh, Member (T) Shri Nipun Kumar, Director, for the Appellant. Shri B.B. Sharma, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : R.K. Singh, Member (T)]. - Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. CC( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

similar goods by indulging into misdeclaration of goods covered by the Bills of Entry filed in July, 2001 (30-7-2001 and 31-7-2001) as also those lying in godown were seized as they were found to be misdeclared. The case was eventually adjudicated by Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD vide Order-in-Original dated 30-6-2003. The appellant filed appeal against the said Order-in-Original and the Tribunal stayed the operation thereof. The stay was vacated on 13-5-2005. The appellant filed appeal befo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inal whereas the Department started processing Bills of Entry in year 2005 and therefore, the interest should not have been demanded and recovered before finalizing Bills of Entry in the year 2005. 4. During the hearing, the appellant reiterated the same contention. 5. We have considered the appellant s contentions and the facts and circumstances of the case. The primary authority in the impugned order has clearly noted as under : I find that the party has filed the refund claim on 28- .....

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