Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (6) TMI 1095

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the very beginning even during investigation. His statement was recorded and he is appearing before the officers of the custom and this reason has been coined by the original authority only for the purpose of denial of rightful claim of refund. Now since the appellant has clarified about his identity also, therefore there is no reason left for the respondent to deny the refund claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20352/2016-SM - 20976/2017 - Dated:- 27-6-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri P. A. Augustine, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.1.2016 passed by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nals of B/E and TR6 Challan evidencing payment of duty, fine and penalty were not furnished as stipulated under Sections 27, 28C and 28D of the Customs Act 1962 read with Customs Refund Application (Forms) Regulation 1995. The requirement of documents was challenged by the Appellant in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala which directed the department to dispose of the refund claim of the Appellant after affording him opportunity for personal hearing. The Appellant preferred an Appeal against the High Court Order vide W.A. No.485/2010. The Refund Claim of the appellant was rejected by the Original Authority vide Order No: 86/10 dated 11.05.2010 as he failed to furnish the documents demanded by the Department. The appellant again filed an ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the specific direction of Hon ble High Court of Kerala. He further submitted as per the Customs Act, 1962, respondent is empowered to issue only an order under Section 27 of the Customs Act covering all the grounds for rejection of claim whereas in Annexure-G order, there was no allegation regarding identity of the appellant. The said order was set aside by the Commissioner (A). Thereafter the respondent can only adjudicate the issue as per the remand order. He further submitted that the original authority is raising new and new grounds for rejection of the refund only to harass the appellant. He further submitted that authorities below have fail .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eed, Sahid M and Sahid Mohammad are one and the same person i.e., the appellant. He further submitted that as per Section 27(2)(b) of the Customs Act unjust enrichment is not applicable in case of personal import and in the present case, as per Bill of Entry, import of goods was allowed under IE Code 0100000045 which is applicable to import of goods for personal use and not connected with any trade or manufacture. The learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 27(a) of the Customs Act, if no refund is made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of application, then the applicant / appellant is entitled to receive interest on such delayed payment after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d from the Padi Village Office, Government of Kerala and also an affidavit clarifying that Mohammad Shaheed, Sahid M and Sahid Mohammad are one and the same person. Moreover, his identity was never in dispute from the very beginning even during investigation. His statement was recorded and he is appearing before the officers of the custom and this reason has been coined by the original authority only for the purpose of denial of rightful claim of refund. Now since the appellant has clarified about his identity also, therefore there is no reason left for the respondent to deny the refund claim. Therefore keeping in view my discussions above and examination of various orders passed by Revenue authorities as well as the judgments of the Hon bl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates