9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Ramasubramanian, CA for the appellant. Smt. C.V. Savitha, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent. ORDER The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order wherein the claim of refund has been rejected by the lower authorities. 2. The crux of the case in hand is that the appellant is manufacturers of surgical sutures. The appellant had imported surgical sutures of variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for benefit of exemption notifications. Consequent to the order by this Tribunal, the appellant filed refund claim by claiming exemptions for their imports made during the period December 2005 to April 2009. Some of the claims where protest was lodged were allowed but rest of the refund claims were rejected for want of evidence of lodging protest. Aggrieved from by the said order, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wants to claim the benefit of exemption for the above Bills of Entry wherein neither appellant claimed any exemption nor made any protest; therefore, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly rejected the refund claim. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the appellant has taken support of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said affidavit is taken on record and is extracted below:- 7.2. On examining the said affidavit, we find that nowhere in the affidavit, it is mentioned on which date, the protest was lodged and before which authority. The affidavit is totally vague and since it cannot be said to be a supportive evidence. 7.3. Further we find that the appellant themselves has lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
