9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent ORDER The appellants challenges the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Ludhiana. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellants have imported different types of textile articles and filed a Bill of Entry No.9635405 dated 10.05.2017 for an assessable value of Rs.23,07,004/-. On an examination of the goods, Revenue was of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken by the appellants at a later date. He submits that the appellant is entitled for the impugned refund of Rs.2,57,625/-. 4. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the original authority has elaborately discussed the reasons for denial for the part of the refund in the Order-in-Original. He also subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f same in its returns. Further the self-declaration without date filed by Importer Shri Om Prakash Mehra & Certificate issued by ETO Ward-5 pertain to non-filing of Tran- 1 for the period 2017-18 which is not valid as the Trans- I was required to be filed by the registered person in R/o goods in stock as on 30.06.2017 where Duty has been filed on 05.07.2017. So the differential amount of Rs.1, 99, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants have not passed on the incidence of duty paid by them at the time of release of the goods; on the other hand, the authority seeks to deny the same as the importer-appellant has an opportunity to take credit of the same in their Returns. I am of the considered opinion that refund cannot be rejected on the basis of a mere apprehension. The Chartered Accountant having gone into the accounts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
