9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Mohd. Altaf, learned Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for the Revenue and Shri Bimal Jain, learned Advocate for the Respondent, we find that the appellant imported certain items and cleared the same on payment of duties of Customs including SAD. They were entitled to the refund of the SAD paid, in terms of Notification No.102/20007-CUS dated 14.09.2007, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Accordingly they filed four refund claims on 17.04.2008, 26.12.2008, 30.08.2008 and 23.03.2009. 3. As the refund applications were not being processed by the Revenue, the appellant approached them by way of various reminders. Subsequently Revenue addressed a communic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the refund claims. 6. The said order of Commissioner(Appeals) is impugned by both the sides before us. 7. As regards the Revenue's appeal, the same is on the sole ground that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly held that non-production of original Bill of Entry was not required. However, we do not find any merits in the above contention in the absence of any provision shown by the Revenue that such original copy of Bill of Entry was required. Further the facts are also undisputed that such copy was produced by the assessee while filing the refund claims, which stands mis-placed by the Revenue. In such a scenario the assessee cannot be expected to produce the original Bill of Entry. Accordingly we find no merits in the Revenue's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtent. 10. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides we find that the issue before the original adjudicating authority was claim of refund of SAD which stands denied by him. As such there was no occasion for the original adjudicating authority to deal with interest aspect. Further Commissioner(Appeals) though had allowed the refund claims, but rejected the interest amount by one line observations reproduced above. There was no discussion or observations by Commissioner(Appeals) as regards interest claimed by the assessee. As such we are of the view that the matter should be remanded to original adjudicating authority for deciding the appellant's claim of interest, in the light of the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
