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. Amicus Communications Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) , The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds)

2016 (6) TMI 817 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Claim of refund in cash - whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount, claimed by them, in cash, as the reward scheme scrips has been withdrawn - violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to them - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the refund applications, which were filed on 13.1.2010, were not taken for disposal for nearly four years, when the Board had issued circular, directing all the Chief Commissioner of 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

.01.2010. - Revenue directed to pass a reasoned order within 3 months. - Writ Petition No. 18071 of 2015 - Dated:- 8-6-2016 - The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Sivagnanam For Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.K.Mohana Murali ORDER Heard Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.K.Mohana Murali, Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents, and with consent on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. I have hea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uty of ₹ 8,59,470.92/-, by availing the benefit of the Notification No.102 of 2007 Customs, dated 14.09.2007. The goods were cleared, and subsequently, on 13.01.2010, the petitioner filed five applications before the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), claiming refund of additional duty of customs paid by them for import of the said products under those five Bills of Entry. The claim for refund was in terms of Notification No.102 of 2007 Customs, dated 14.09.2007, a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fore the Commissioner of Custms (Appeals), the petitioner has raised such a plea of violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to them. 6. The second respondent, on scrutiny of the documents, held that the petitioner has availed the benefit of the notification No.41 of 2005, and in terms of para No.4 of the said notification, the petitioner shall be entitled to avail of the drawback, or CENVAT Credit of additional duty, leviable und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n Appeal before the first respondent/Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). In the memorandum of grounds of Appeal, it is specifically contended by the petitioner that they had not availed the benefit of the notification No.C.N.41 of 2005, which allow the importers to avail the drawback or CENVAT Credit of additional duty, leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, as they are only the trader of the goods. Further, it was stated that the applications for refund in respect of three Bills of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 4 % CVD (SAD) is extended till 30.06.2012. 8. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that they having filed the applications for refund, as early as on 13.01.2010, the Authority ought to have taken decision in the matter in terms of circular issued by the Board, and passed orders on or before 30.06.2012. Further, the petitioner pointed out that, in another Circular No.18 of 2013, dated 29.04.2013, the Board directed all the Chief Commissioner of Customs to ensure that all pending applica .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

claim for refund has been rightly rejected. With regard to the decision of this Court passed in W.P.No.17012 of 2001, dated 03.08.2010, it was pointed out that the said case is distinguishable. 10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though notification No.41 of 2005 contains a clause, stating that the importer shall be entitled to avail of the drawback, or CENVAT Credit of additional duty, leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is not attempting to make any double benefit, and the petitioner is legally entitled to refund of the additional duty paid by them, and if the scheme had been scrapped, then, the petitioner is entitled for cash refund, and therefore, they have filed this Writ Petition, without availing the alternate remedy of filing Appeal before Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Though such arguments are advanced before this Court, it appear .....

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