2023 (4) TMI 1203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeals 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. Counsels for the appellant have reiterated their submissions about applicability of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Sony India Pvt. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication 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 never got removed by the appellants. Thus, the discrepancies with respect to the refund claim in question as are mentioned in the impugned final ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... site 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 deficiencies already observed at scrutiny level, continued and the refund claims were rejected on both the aspects i.e. for being incomplete and for being barred by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X