9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for my consideration is: whether the rejection of refund of cash security deposit, as confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, is correct? 3. Facts are not in dispute: for the sake of convenience, facts as reflected in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal are considered. The appellant had imported goods separately vide 13 Bills-of-Entry (as per "Table-1" at paragraph 2 of the impugned Orders-in-Appeal) and 26 Bills-of-Entry (as per "Table-2" - below Table-1). Vide separate letters dated 27.10.2020, the appellant sought for refund of the cash security deposit and the Deputy Commissioner, after issuing a notice of Rejection Cum Virtual Personal Hearing dated 05.03.2021, issued the Order-in-Original Nos. 83446/2021 and 83449/2021 both dated 08. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f finalization of the Bills-of-Entry and cancelled the Bank Guarantee and Bond only on 09.07.2019 and 14.08.2019 and till such dates, the appellant was not informed / intimated about the finalization of assessment of the said 26 and 13 Bills-of-Entry; that unless and until the Department re-assess the entire Bills-of-Entry covered under the project import, the Project Import Authority could never calculate the duty liability, if any, arising out of the imports covered under the project contract and that upon finalization of all the Bills-of-Entry covered under the contract, duty liability, if any, could only be due to short payment of duty. For this reason, the finalization of all the Bills-of-Entry covered under the project import was esse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant pertains to refund. She would thus request for upholding the rejection orders of the lower authorities by supporting the findings therein. 7. I have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the decisions relied upon during the course of arguments. 8. It is not the case of the Revenue that what the appellant claimed was the refund of the duty paid and there is also no dispute that the appellant claimed only the security deposit made. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) has considered a similar issue and has ruled as under:- "4. The issues involved in the present case are squarely covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
