TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative (DR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER Per. Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent imported copper wire rod of 8 mm being a trader and the same has been cleared after payment of VAT/CST. The respondent filed refund claim of SAD of 4% paid under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS dated 14/09/2007. The refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority relying on the CBEC Circular No. 18/2013-CUS. Dated 29/04/2013 on the ground that the DEPB strips/reward scheme strips cannot be reused for refund of 4% of SAD. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that in the invoices issued by the respondent, they have not menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent to the Circular No. 18/2010-Customs dated 08.07.2010. Circular No. 18/2010-Customs 08.07.2010 was in respect of special drive for clearance of 4% SAD refund claims. The subsequent Circular No. 27/2010-Customs dated 13.08.2010, dealt with issue of re-credit of 4% SAD, as the EDI system then was not allowing the re-credit, and a lot of claims were pending.. Therefore manual re-crediting of the duty scrip was allowed on the basis of the consolidated certificate issued by the Customs and the manual filing of the Bill of Entry, utilizing the re-credit amount of SAD refund, was allowed up to 30.12.2010. Further, the importers were advised not to reuse of such re-credited SAD amount for payment of 4% SAD. The subsequent Circular No. 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, but the impugned order has not raised any objection about such documents. Therefore, I have to assume that such chart and certificate must have been provided, therefore co relation can be made on the basis of such charts, certificate, Bill of Entry and the invoice. The appellant should have been provided sufficient opportunity to produce all the relevant documents. Similarly non submission of self declaration in Annexure-I can also be rectified by giving the appellant an opportunity and cannot be made ground for rejection. My opinion is based on the apex court s judgement in the case of Mangalore Chemical Fertilizers vs Deputy Commissioner 1991 (55) E L T (437) S C), wherein the Hon ble Court had stated that - Interpretation of st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
