TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin [2013 (11) TMI 1042 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and in the case of Mridul Timbers and others Vs. CC, Cochin [2015 (3) TMI 1074 - CESTAT BENGLALORE] support the stand of the appellant-importer. Also the refund claim has been filed within time which is supported by CESTAT, Delhi’ s decision in the case of CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi Vs. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 121 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Therefore, refund claim is admissible. - Decided in favour of appellant with some condition - C/1583/2011-SM - Final Order No. 20176 / 2016 - Dated:- 29-1-2016 - SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri M. Balagopal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Saxena, AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well in time i.e. within one year as import duty (including SAD) was paid on 07.01.2008 and they filed their refund application on 06.01.2009. Thus it is within one year which is the time limit for filing the refund claim under the said notification. Further they plead as follows: (i) They have placed all the necessary documents available with them which is mentioned in the order-in-original dated 23.10.2009 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds). (ii) They could not produce original duty paid challan but they submitted photocopy of the duty paid challan No. 99065204 dated 07.01.2008 attested by the Indian Bank. (iii) Regarding the stamp of non-admissibility of cenvat credit on their sale invoices, their buyer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be granted. During hearing the importer-appellants made a mention that as the original TR-6 challan was lost they submitted photocopy of said duty paid challan dated 07.01.2008 which was attested by the Indian Bank, W/island, where the importer-appellants deposited the duty of customs. Further in respect of non-submission of stamp invoices (mentioning that cenvat credit cannot be claimed), the argument given by the appellants is that in normal course their invoices carry consolidated amount only, where SAD is never shown separately; therefore buyer of the appellants cannot claim any cenvat credit; further they are not registered as a dealer under Central Excise on whose invoices cenvat credit could be claimed; therefore there was no qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
