Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE, Noida Versus M/s Lark Non Ferrous Metals Ltd.

2017 (9) TMI 906 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-CUS dated 14/09/2007 - rejection on the ground that the DEPB strips/reward scheme strips cannot be reused for refund of 4% of SAD - Held that: - 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 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation 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 mentioned bill of entry number, therefore, there is no co-relation. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the learne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant has contested the adjudicating authorities claim regarding issuance of deficiency note. Therefore, I am of the view that the principles of natural justices were not upheld and the appellant were not given sufficient opportunity to plead their case. The CBEC vide its Circular No. 21/90-CX-8 dated 04.04.1990 and Circular No. 65/2000- Cus., dated 27.07.2000, has stated that hearing has to be provided in processing of refund claims. The intentions of the CBEC was to provide sufficient .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

earance 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and therefore have disallowed re-credit on the basis of Circular No. 18/2013-Customs. I am of the opinion that the said Circular No. 18/2013-Customs dated 29.04.2013 did not restrict the re-credit of SAD refund as has been stated by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. In fact the CBEC Circular No. 06/2008-Customs dated 28.04.2008, 16/2008-Cus dated 13.10.2008 and 06/2009-Cus dated 09.02.09 clearly provide for refund by way of re-credit of the FPS scrip. Therefore, law cannot be int .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version