9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Appeal No. 11000 of 2014 , Customs Appeal No. 13903 of 2014 HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. SOMESH ARORA Shri. Rahul Gajera, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Prakash Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER SOMESH ARORA The learned Advocate submits that in this matter the refund applications were filed against Bill of Entries, which were assessed provisionally for claiming refund of SAD as per Customs Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14 September, 2007. The applications were filed under this notification after the provisional duty was paid earlier and in some cases final assessment having been done and refunds were claimed as per Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The department rejected the refund claims on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew Delhi., as reported in 2017 (348) E.L.T 708 (Tri.,- Del.) Specially para 7 and date of the decision is reproduced below:- "7. The fact is not under dispute that the assessment of Bills of Entry in this case was provisional and the same were finalized on 15-9-2010. Thus, there was no scope or occasion for the appellant to file the refund application before the date of such finalization, in terms of Explanation-II appended to Section 27 ibid, providing the time limit of six months for filing refund claim, in case of provisional assessment, from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof. However, in view of the Circular dated 29-7-2010 issued by the CBEC, the refund application was filed by the appellant on 9-9-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point of emphasis was that any ambiguity in exemption notification has to be interpreted in favour of the department, therefore, if the board's circular mentioned that it is a provisional payment of duty from which limitation has to be reckoned and not final payment of duty then the same needs to be interpreted, in accordance with the Board Circular only. 4. Considered, this Court finds that the Board Circular as well as the Delhi High Court decision as reported in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India-2014 (301) ELT 59 (Delhi High Court) was duly considered by the Division Bench of Delhi this Tribunal in SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE INDIA P. LTD VS C.C. (IMPORT & GENERAL), NEW DELHI, cited Supra and it was decided in that matter in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
