TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven failed to appear before the respective Original Adjudicating Authorities when opportunities of personal hearings were given to them. The Original Adjudicating Authorities, accordingly, decided the matter ex-parte vide respective Orders-in-Original rejecting the refund claim not only for it to be barred by time but also for it to be incomplete. Though ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed only one aspect of rejecting the claims i.e. time bar aspect. But it is observed that the orders of Original Authorities have been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) resulting into merger of these orders. The perusal of Orders-in-Original is clear that those were passed ex-parte. The appellants, despite the opportunities given, never responded to De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 dated 27.02.2023 and in case No. CUSAA-122/2022. The appeals have been remanded to this Tribunal with the directions to decide these appeals afresh after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity to meet the objections regarding alleged discrepancies noticed in the refund claim based whereupon the refund claim was rejected by this Tribunal. Pursuant to the said directions, the fresh notices were served upon the appellant as well as the Department, pursuant to those notices. 2. Mr. Priyadarshi Manish and Mr. Uday Pathak, learned Advocates appeared for the appellant and Mr. Gopi Raman, learned Authorised Representative appeared for the Department, pursuant to those notices. 3. I have heard both the parties. 4. Ld. Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant had filed the refund claim on 09.04.2018 of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD), for a total amount of Rs.2,40,562/- in the light of Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007. This notification exempts the goods falling within First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported into India for subsequent sale from whole of the Additional duty of customs leviable thereon under sub-section(3) of the said Customs Tariff Act. The said refund claim was filed on 19.03.2018 after the appellant sold the goods i.e. Polyester non-textured lining fabric as were imported from China. Three of the claims, however, were rejected by this Tribunal for being incomplete, as the discrepancies pointed out at the stage of initial scrutiny were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with respect to the refund claim to be incomplete for which the Deficiency Memo as early as on 09.04.2018 was served, were confirmed for want of no requisite documents to ever been furnished by the appellant even before this Tribunal. 9. Though ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed only one aspect of rejecting the claims i.e. time bar aspect. But it is observed that the orders of Original Authorities have been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) resulting into merger of these orders. The perusal of Orders-in-Original is clear that those were passed ex-parte. The appellants, despite the opportunities given, never responded to Deficiency Memo nor to Show Cause Notice nor even to the notices of personal hearing. Resultantly, the deficiencie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
