TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that: - the amount paid by appellant for import of hardware from Singapore, which did not involve any service as correctly observed by both original and lower appellate authority. The question of refund of this amount u/r 5 ibid will certainly not arise - appellant is advised that they can very well take back the credit of the difference between the amount claimed by them u/r 5 and the amount san ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,607/- being the credit availed based on photocopy of invoices. Appellant filed appeal with Commissioner (Appeals) only on the disputed portion of refund of ₹ 3,10,992/- pertaining to imported hardware material from M/s. Reddington Distribution Pte. Ltd., Singapore. However, vide the impugned order their appeal was rejected. Aggrieved appellants are before this forum. 2. Today when the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey were put to notice or granted an opportunity to present their case either in writing or in person and as such entire proceedings are vitiated due to principles of natural justice not having been followed. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R attested to the correctness of the impugned order. He further points out that, in respect of any refund claims filed under Rule 5 of the Rules read with Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purportedly paid by appellant for import of hardware from Singapore, which did not involve any service as correctly observed by both original and lower appellate authority. The question of refund of this amount under Rule 5 ibid will certainly not arise and therefore the view taken rejecting the plea of the appellant in the impugned order does not require any interference. However, as correctly po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
