TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015 (11) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon where it was held that there was no reason for denying the benefit only on the ground that at the time when the appellant had sought the duty drawback, the goods could not be physically examined. Matter remanded back to the original adjudicating authority, who is directed to decide the matter afresh within one month of receipt of this order in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresented by ld. Advocate Shri Puneet Bansal who has inter alia submitted as follows : (i) There is contravention of principles of natural justice. (ii) The appellant filed application for grant of drawback by conversion of free shipping bills to drawback bills. (iii) In the alternate, the appellant filed another application for grant of drawback without conversion of shipping bills. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtunity to explain their case and principles of natural justice were not followed by the adjudicating authority. Considering the facts on record and the submissions of the appellant and the Hon ble Apex Court s decision in Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC CE, Visakhapatnam-II 2015 (325) ELT 801 (SC) and CESTAT Kolkata s decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CC (Prev.), Kolkata 2016 (3) TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
