TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or me to hold that after the date of personal hearing i.e. 28 January, 2020, the Additional written submissions were filed by the appellant which were received by the adjudicating authority after the aforesaid date o personal hearing i.e. on 12 February, 2020. This perusal is sufficient to hold that Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while noting failure on part of the appellant from submitting the additional submissions, rejection of the appeal on this ground is therefore, not sustainable. Want of proper stamping - HELD THAT:- As per the condition 2 (b) of Notification No. 102 dated 14.09.2007, the refund of SAD can be sanctioned when the invoice or sale of goods are produced on record specifically indicating the non-admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- only - both the grounds of rejection as taken by Commissioner (Appeals) are not sustainable. Appellant is held entitled for refund claim of SAD but for an amount of ₹ 1,58,685 only - Appeal disposed off. - Customs Appeal No. 51113 of 2020 [SM] - FINAL ORDER No. 52057/2021 - Dated:- 22-11-2021 - MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mr.Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the Appellant Ms.Prabjyoti K. Chandra, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed to assail the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A) CUS/D-II/PPG/68/20-21 dated 21.05.2020 vide which the refund claim as was filed by the appellant has been rejected. 2. The refund claim of ₹ 2,29,821/- was filed by appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be duly stamped as were otherwise required in terms of Notification No.102 of 14.09.2007. Ld. Counsel has brought to the notice that the Written submissions were duly filed before Commissioner (Appeals) hence one of the grounds is wrong on the face of the record. Annexure P-3 as annexed with the appeal memo is impressed upon. With respect to the another ground ld. Counsel has brought to the notice several invoices in respect of the impugned 3 Bills of Entries where it has been specifically mentioned that the invoice shows the actual price of goods described and that all the particulars are true and correct. It has also been specifically mentioned in the invoice that the invoice is computer generated ones. Hence, there was no occasion for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1975 shall be admissible. Ground No.1 : From the record it is observed that the additional written submissions were filed by the appellant Annexure P-3 are the said submissions. It bears the receipt of the Department, i.e. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 12 February, 2020. The perusal of this document is sufficient for me to hold that after the date of personal hearing i.e. 28 January, 2020, the Additional written submissions were filed by the appellant which were received by the adjudicating authority after the aforesaid date o personal hearing i.e. on 12 February, 2020. This perusal is sufficient to hold that Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while noting failure on part of the appellant from submitting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t due as refund of additional duty of Customs and same amount has not been passed on to the buyers of the sale of goods. The said Certificate of the statutory auditor of the appellant is an admissible evidence specially when there is nothing on record by the department to rebut the said documents. 7. Above all department has not denied the eligibility of impugned refund claim. The otherwise objection of the Department is that instead of the amount of ₹ 2,29,821/- as claimed by the appellant, refund of amount of ₹ 1,58,685/- only is applicable to them. The said factum has also been mentioned in the Chartered Account Certificate in addition, has been acknowledged/ admitted by the appellants that amount of ₹ 2,29,821/- ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
