9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld.Counsel, Shri Ramesh Ananthan, appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that part of the refund claims in these appeals were sanctioned by the adjudicating authority against which department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide orders impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claims. The appellant is thus before the Tribunal. 3.1. In Appeal C/42373/2014, the period involved is Sep.2010 to Dec.2010. The original authority sanctioned the refund of Rs. 11,96,975/- and rejected the refund claim of Rs. 63,148/-. The department as well as the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide Order in Appeal 1195/2014, 1196/2014 dt.21/7/2014, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entry cannot take away the substantive right of refund. 3.1.b. Another ground on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund is that there was no proof adduced by the appellant that the goods were sold by the consignment agent on behalf of the importer. The Ld.Counsel argued that the consignment sale agreement copy was submitted before the original authority and no such ground was alleged by the original authority while processing the refund claim. 3.2. In Appeal C/42377/2014, the period involved is August 2010 to September 2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the ground that the consignment sale agreement did not mention about the sales tax liability to be on the importer/consignor. Another ground wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he second reason for rejection is that the appellant has not produced the copy of consignment sales agreement. 3.6 In appeal C/42375/14, the period involved is March 2010 to March 2012, the refund has been rejected stating the reason that the description of the goods in the sales invoice do not match with the Bill of Entry / Import document. The second reason is that the appellant has not produced the consignment sales agreement copy. 3.7 In appeal C/42374/2014, the period involved is Sept.2010 to January 2011. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim on the issue that the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry do not match with the description of the goods given in the local sales invoice. 4. The Ld.AR. Sh.K.Veera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of entry. The mere mention of grades of plastic granules in the sales invoice cannot be a ground to deny the substantive benefit of refund, when there is no dispute that appellant has sold the very same goods that have been imported. The issue stands covered by the decision in the case of CC, Chennai vs Shri Ram Impex India (P) Ltd. 2014 (300) E.L.T. 126 (Tri. - Chennai). Following the same, we hold that the rejection of refund on this ground is not correct and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. c. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund stating that the appellant has not produced the consignment sale agreement copy. In appeal C/42377/2014, it is seen that appellant has produced consignment sale agreement copy and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
