9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. ORDER PER ASHOK JINDAL : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying refund claim filed by the appellant rent paid on behalf of the Revenue to CWC warehouse. 2. The facts of the case are that some investigation was conducted against the appellant and some imported goods as well as indigenous goods were seized. The seizure of imported goods is not in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter on, filed refund claim of the amount deposited by them on account of rent to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), NCH, New Delhi. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority holding that the refund claim is barred by limitation and as the rent has been paid to CWC warehouse for storage of goods owned by the appellant, therefore, the appellant is required to pay rent. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er protest. Therefore, question of challenging the adjudication order does not arise as the adjudicating authority has not passed any order against the appellant to pay rent for the period of seizure of goods. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay rent and the amount paid on account of rent under protest is to be refunded. He further submits that as the goods were in the custody of Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant for the period of seizure of goods. In these circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay rent. As the appellant has paid an amount on account of rent in favour of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), NCH, New Delhi under protest, the said amount is refundable to the appellant as the appellant has no liability to pay rent. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
