TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process of sterilization and repacking effect changes to the goods itself, which submission it is not agreed with and rejected. Sterilization of the goods does not change the glove into another commodity. Likewise, labelling of glove also does not change the commodity itself. Having undergone both processes the glove remains a glove only. The definition of 'deemed manufacturer' with effect from 11.07.2014, is thus not applicable in the context of the present case and reliance upon the same is misconceived - petition allowed. - W.P(MD)Nos.10110 to 10130 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2019 - DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH, J. For Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.R.Aravindan ORDER This common order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Notification No. 102-2007, refund claims were sanctioned for the period till 11.07.2014. http://www.judis.nic.in 5. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, dated 01.10.2015, proposing to reverse the refunds already sanctioned and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why all refunds sanctioned not be so reversed. A detailed reply was filed by the petitioner despite which, the impugned orders dated 29.12.2016 and 30.12.2016 have been passed, wherein the Assessing Authority partly accepts the claim of the petitioners in relation to the period till 11.07.2014 and confirms the proposals for the period after 11.07.2014. 6. The rejection is made based on an amendment to the provisions of Section 2(f) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a reminder dated 11.03.2019. Since there was no response to either of the requests, the present writ petitions have been filed albeit with a delay of three years. I find this explanation reasonable. The order of the Tribunal is dated March 2018 and no doubt there is a delay of one year even for request to reconsider the order-in- original. However, the petitioner has not shown total negligence in seeking redressal but is seen to have taken some action and hence, this argument is rejected. 9. On merits, no counter has been filed in the matter. Mr.Aravindan, learned Standing Counsel had specifically on 26.06.2019 confirmed the position that he does not wish to file a counter and is ready to argue on the basis of instructions received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said goods, shall specifically indicate in the invoice that in respect of the goods covered therein, no credit of the additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 shall be admissible; (c) the importer shall file a claim for refund of the said additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with the jurisdictional customs officer; (d) the importer shall pay on sale of the said goods, appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be; (e) the importer shall, inter alia, provide copies of the following documents along with the refund claim; (i) document evidencing payment of the said additional http://www.judis.nic.in duty; (ii) invoices o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
