TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, it is held that the amount encashed by way of bank guarantee remained with the Revenue as deposit and accordingly with the meaning of Section 129 EE, the appellant is entitled to interest on refund from the date of deposit till the date of refund @6% p.a. Appeal allowed. - Customs Restoration of Appeal Application No.50163 of 2023 (on behalf of the appellant) With Customs Appeal No. 51668 of 2021 (SM) - FINAL ORDER No. 50548/2023 - Dated:- 21-4-2023 - HON BLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri N. K. Sharma , Consultant for the appellant Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj , Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER ANIL CHOUDHARY The appellant has filed this miscellaneous application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d hence the Bank Guarantees amounting to Rs.9,78,291/- were encashed by the Department. The show cause notice issued to appropriate this amount, was dropped vide Order-in-Original No.61/Subodh Dhar/ADC/Adjn./DL-IV/2013-14 dated 18.06.2014, whereby it was held that the appellant was entitled for refund of the said amount. The Additional Commissioner categorically held that the whole of the goods imported vide bill of entry No.502 dated 26.02.2003 and no.565 dated 05.03.2003 for jobbing purposes, have eventually been re-exported back to the supplier along with resultant products. Such export obligation, it is recorded was completed on or before 31.03.2012 vide last shipping bill no.8286558. It is further observed that the benefit of Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 14.05.2015, the refund was sanctioned on 28.05.2015. Therefore, he held that there is no delay in sanctioning the refund. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, urges that already a finding has been recorded that on the date of encashment of bank guarantees (on 17.05.2012), the appellant had already completed export obligations prior to that on 31.03.2012 and hence, no amount was recoverable. Thus, the amount encashed remained with the Revenue as deposit and the same has been so held vide order-in-original dated 18.06.2014. In this view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to refund of the said amount with appropriate interest. Although the refund has been granted but t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
