GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (1) TMI 690 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2017 (1) TMI 690 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Refund - unjust enrichment - Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner (A) mainly on the ground that while sanctioning the refund amount, the Asst. Commissioner of Customs ought to have verified whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to any other person or not and if the same has been passed on, then the refund amount should be ordered to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. Further, the department has also taken the objection that th .....

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 S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Pradyumna G.H. Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the learned Commissioner (A) has allowed the department appeal and set aside the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a shipping bill No.334/10 dated 6.4.2010 with Custom House, Karwar for the export of 24, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt analysis and the final assessment of the shipping bill revealed excess payment of export duty to the extent of ₹ 1,01,625/-. Thereafter the appellant filed refund claim with the customs department seeking refund of excess export duty along with all the documents. The Asst. Commissioner vide order dated 23.7.2013 sanctioned the refund claim filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order, Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner (A) mainly on the ground that while sanct .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ence of duty. The Commissioner (A) vide the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 allowed the appeal of the Revenue and hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts of the case. He further submitted that there is no doubt about the fact that the appellant had exported 24,600 WMTs of iron ore fines and had paid applic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| 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