Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Abacus Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Custom, (I) Air Cargo Complex, Sahar Mumbai

2016 (6) TMI 392 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund claim - Custom duty and interest paid towards bill of entry which was showing pending since 2007 - Rejected on account of non submission of documents - Import of 200 pcs of 1GB DDR 2 SD RAM Modules - Goods not cleared as per statement therefore re-called back by the supplier - Held that:- though no evidence was produced regarding the export of the goods but at the same time it is clearly observed by the lower authority in the impugned order the goods have not been delivered to the appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sent case, it has been informed by the assessment group of Customs that no out of charge was given to the said bill of entry and it also informed that no re-export permission was given to the importer, therefore either delivery of the goods should be given to the appellant and if department is failed to give delivery of the goods by not giving out of charge then appellant shall be entitle for the refund of the duty and interest paid by them. I therefore direct the Adjudicating authority either t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

UM-CUSTM-AMP-APP-518/15-16 dated 30/11/2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai Zone III, whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original No. DC/AS /1777/ 2013 ACC dated 9/12/2013, rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant had imported one box; weighting 6.88 kg, having 200 pcs of 1GB DDR 2 SD RAM Modules from M/s. Micro Semiconductor Asia Pvt Ltd, Singapore vide B/E No. 1599950 dated 13/6/2007. Goods were not c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

G03011312629339038 and internet transaction No. CK23813289. Realizing their mistake, the appellant filed the refund claim on 11/1/2013 for the amount of ₹ 1,83,723/-. By deficiency memo the appellant was asked to submit all the import and export documents. Appellant vide their letter dated 29/3/2013 conveyed to the custom authority that the original copy of duplicate Bill of Entry NO. 1599950 dated 13/6/2007 was not available with them as no physical delivery of the goods were made to them .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hri. Anil Balani, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per their knowledge goods have been re-exported and they have received back money i.e. value of the goods from their foreign supplier therefore they were not suppose to pay duty on the said goods. However appellant paid the duty alongwith interest oversightly therefore the said amount should be refunded to the appellant. As regard the re-export of the goods he submits that the foreign supplier have confirmed the receipt of the goods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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