TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o consider the refund claims on the basis of Indemnity Bonds that may allowed to be produced by MMTC - matter on remand. Refund claim - Actual export after exemption given to export of iron ore fine on 07.12.2008 - Original Shipping Bill prepared on 5.12.2008. Thereafter, cancelled due to substitution of vessel. Actual export on 9.12.2008 vide fresh Shipping - Held that: - the issue herein also is being remanded to the original authority to consider the claim made by MMTC that export duty was paid on a shipping bill which was cancelled due to non availability of vessel and that actual export was done after the duty was exempted, hence the refund is justified - matter on remand. Refund claim - time limitation - Held that: - MMTC not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xporters copy etc. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide an impugned order No.848/2011 dt. 17.10.2011 upheld the order of original authority and rejected the appeal. Hence Appeal No.C/14/2012 filed by the MMTC. 4. Department has filed two appeals No.C/377/2012 and C/378/2012 against two other Orders-in-Appeal C.Cus.No.1168 and 1169 both dated 09-10-2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the grounds that the said authority erred in interpreting Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 by wrongly extending the benefit of one year for filing refund available to the Government, to MMTC. 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri N. Prasad submits the following chart indicating various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter, cancelled due to substitution of vessel. Actual export on 9.12.2008 vide fresh Shipping Bill No.3228873 (Page 64 of Vol. 1) 1 1,58,28,461/- paid on 6.12.2008 vide TR 6 Challan No.102455, dated 6.12.2008 (Vide Page 59 of Vol.1) 5.1 In respect of category covered by Sl.No.(1), in the chart above, ld. Advocate submits that these nine shipping bills involving a refund claim of ₹ 2,31,04,965/- relate to the dispute where they had filed an application before the Settlement Commission and on which an order of settlement had been issued by the Commission, which has been implemented, hence for these nine shipping bills, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt duty was paid, as there was no export duty liability on the actual date of export. Therefore export duty paid on the cancelled shipping bill dt. 5.12.2008 is very much refundable to them. 5.5. In respect of departmental appeals C/377/2012, C/378/2012, ld. Advocate submits that these also relate to shipping bills where the original authority had rejected the refund claim on the ground that they had been filed beyond the period of 6 months. Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed their appeal on the grounds that they would fall within the category of government organization and hence extended period of limitation would be available to them. Ld. Advocate submits that on the same reasons put forth in respect of Shipping Bill Nos.97173 and 9766 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve flagged the fact that the adjudicating authority though had mentioned the said consignment in para-3 of his order, however had not taken into account his claim in the operative order. 7. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 8.1 The take away from the submissions of both sides is that in respect of assessee's appeal No.C/14/2012, MMTC is not pressing for the refund claim in respect of Shipping Bill Nos.3069232, 3140669, 3140675, 3178945, 3178954, 3051474, 3051462, 3096436, 3096433 of category covered by Sl.No.(1) and Shipping Bill Nos.97173 97669 of category covered by Sl.No.(2). Hence Appeals in respect of these shipping bills are dismissed. So ordered. 8.2. In respect of five Shipping Bill Nos.3084556, 97830, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
