9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of deposit till the date of refund. 2.1 Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent had filed two Bills of Entry as per below Table-A and four Bills of Entry as per below Table-B for import of waste paper at the port of import INSGF6: Table-A S. No. BoE No. & Date Port Code Duty Amt. (Rs.) Challan No. & Date 1. 4038372 22.05.21 INSGF6 38977 2035083264 24.05.21 & 25.05.21 2. 4062236 24.05.21 INSGF6 20673 2035084179 24.05.21 & 25.05.21 Total 59,650 Table-B S. No. BoE No. & Date Port Cod Duty Amt. (Rs.) Challan No. & Date 1. 4118107 28.05.21 INSGF6 10633190 2035134724 29.05.21 & 30.05.21 2. 4118111 23.05.21 INSG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.2021 & 25.05.2021 in respect of BOEs as per Table-A and on 29.05.2021 & 30.05.2021 in respect of BOEs as per Table-B. Thus, being customs duty paid twice on the same BOEs, the respondent filed refund claim for excess paid customs duty to the jurisdictional refund sanctioning authority/adjudicating authority. 2.4 The adjudicating authority while processing the claims for refund of excess paid customs duty observed that "BE Challan Enquiry" status submitted by the respondent itself shows that payment of duties of customs was attempted on 24.05.2021 & 25.05.2021 and on 29.05.2021 & 30.05.2021 but the e-payment transaction which has successfully been integrated with ICES (Indian Customs EDI System) was of dated 25.05.2021 and 30.05.2021 only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue submits that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable in law. 4.2 The learned AR further submits that the respondent filed refund claim vide application dated 10.06.2021 of excess payment of customs duty. Since the application was incomplete, the same was returned to the respondent on 24.06.2021. In compliance, the respondent submitted the documents vide letter dated 04.08.2021. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 20.10.2021 rejected the claim on the ground that National Informatics Centre (NIC) did not confirm integration of said excess payment of customs duty and no documentary proof was submitted by the respondent to establish that the payment has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that the Tribunal has consistently held that if the matter is covered by the National Litigation Policy under instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC, then the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable under the National Litigation Policy. 5.2 On merits also, the learned Counsel submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly granted the interest by observing that all the documents were produced before the adjudicating authority and the department was at liberty to verify the same; the department cannot absolve of its responsibility by way of putting burden on the respondent. 5.3 In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relies on the following judgments: * Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana Vs. Goyal Imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Tribunal in the case of CC, ICDs vs. VSM Impex (cited supra) wherein Division Bench of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 60260-60285/2024 dt. 22.05.2024 has rejected 26 appeals filed by the Revenue under the National Litigation Policy by holding that the appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC. In the present case also, I am of the considered view that the present two appeals are also not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC; therefore, I dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue without going into the merits of the case; however, the question of law is kept open.
(Order pronounced in the court on 26.07.2024) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
