9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the present case are M/s. Cargo care International CHA had filed B/E No.173322/02.02.2006 on behalf of Mohammad Shaheed, 4, Makaliamman Koil Street, Enmore, Chennai- 600 057, Passport No. A2369585, who had imported one unit of 'Toyota Soarer' Car which was adjudicated vide Order (Original) No.51 /2006 dated 07.08.2006 and on account of mis-declaration the value of vehicle was re-determined as Rs. 11,22,610/- and a RF of Rs. 3,30,000/- and a Penalty of Rs. 1,70,000 /- was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order No.478/2007 dated 24.09.2007 ordered that the declared value be accepted and reduced the RF to Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty to Rs. 50,000/- and also allowed the Plea for quashing the "No Sale Condition" imposed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted a letter dated 7.01.2014 for refund along with Self attested copy of the TR6 Challan and Bill of Entry. The department issued a letter dated 27.03.2014 to produce the documentary evidence substantiating his claim that the original B/E and TR6 Challan were submitted before the RTO authorities. Meanwhile the High Court of Kerala dismissed the Writ Appeal No.485/2010 filed by the Appellant. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition No.6477 /2014 wherein the Department was directed to allow the Refund claim of the appellant after verifying the genuineness of the documents produced by the Appellant. The Original Authority rejected the Refund claim of the Appellant vide Order No.1041/2014 dated 19.12.2014 for the reason that he could not fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding the identity of the appellant. During investigation also no objection was raised regarding identity of the appellant who appeared before the officers of SIIB. He also submitted that the authorities below have disobeyed the direction of the Hon'ble High Court wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that documents including bills of entry produced by the appellant was sufficient to meet the requirement of refund claim and insistence of other documents are only of a technical argument. It was specifically directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide its order dated 12.11.2014 that on producing identity and account details, refund shall be effected to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the refund application, it is not a reason to deny interest. He also relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. as reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if refund is not granted within the stipulated period of three months from the date of filing the refund application, then the assessee would be entitled to interest as per law. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that as per the impugned order, appellants are entitled to refund but he has to furnish the proof of identity and accounts details and other documents. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that the original authority has rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
