9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the refund claim. The claim of the appellant for refund of amounts with respect to two Bills of Entry dt. 29.03.2013 was rejected observing that though the appellant has produced invoices and Chartered Accountant certificate stating that the goods described in the invoices correlate with the goods imported, on perusal of the date of invoices as well as the date of Bill of Entry, it was noted that it is not possible that goods were sold on the same date. Aggrieved by the rejection of refund, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the orders. Hence these appeals. 2. The Learned Counsel, Ms. Rithika appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the department has rejected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 dt 10.3.2014 to reject the refund claim is that the goods have been imported by Bill of Entry dt. 29.03.2013 and out of charge has been given on 30.03.2013. The invoices are also dated 30.03.2013. It is the case of the Department that the importer being at Hyderabad, it is impossible for the goods to travel to Hyderabad and then be delivered to the customer at Sivakasi on the same date itself. Thus, it is presumed by the department that the goods sold vide impugned invoice Nos.157 & 158/2013 are not the goods which have been imported by the appellant and it has suffered 4% Special Additional Duty. On perusal of the consignment notes placed in the appeal paper book, it is seen that the appellant has a branch at Chennai. The consignor's nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther place in India can import goods at Chennai port. It is not necessary that the goods have to come back to the said customer at Mumbai or Hyderabad and then be delivered to the customer to whom the goods are to be sold. The importer can make arrangements to deliver the goods to the customer from the port itself. This being so, the assumption made by the original authority that it is impossible for the goods to travel upto Hyderabad and then be delivered to the buyer at Sivakasi, is highly erroneous. The invoices are raised by the importer appellant which is the Hyderabad Branch. I find that the rejection of refund claims is without any factual basis. The impugned order to the extent of rejecting the refund claims in respect of two Bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
