TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted within six months. Thus, it was concluded that the conditions of the Notification No. 158/95-Cus are satisfied - rejecting the refund claim in the denovo proceedings stating that the original order rejecting the refund claims were not challenged, is contrary to the remand order of this Tribunal dt. 18.3.2004, hence deserves to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich were assessed to duty under Notification No. 94/96-Cus and they paid CVD @ of 18%. Since Notification No. 158/95-Cus. provided exemption from CVD and customs duty for such goods on its re-export, the appellant filed refund claim of the CVD paid on 3.7.1998 in accordance with the notification No. 158/95, within the time limit prescribed under the provisions of Customs Act. The adjudicating auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under, it is certified that the appellant had fulfilled the condition Nos. 4(b), (c) and (d) of the Notification No. 158/95-Cus. 3. In the denovo proceeding, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs (Import) vide order dt. 3.5.2010, rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant had not challenged the original order of assessment. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o issue necessary certificate about fulfillment of conditions mentioned in the Notification and accordingly a certificate was issued to the appellant. It is his contention that rejecting the refund claims on the ground that they had not filed appeal against the earlier assessment order, therefore, bad in law and beyond the scope of remand of the CESTAT order dt. 18.3.2004. 5. Ld. AR for the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4(b) (c) (d) of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. Pursuant to the said observation/ direction, the appellant approached the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise where the re-imported goods were processed and obtained a certificate stating that they had complied with the conditions No. 4(b), (c) (d). Thus, rejecting the refund claim in the denovo proceedings stating that the orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
