9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Stay application against Order-in-Appeal rejecting refund claim. Analysis: The case involves a stay application filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal that set aside the adjudicating authority's decision rejecting a refund claim by the respondent. The main contention revolves around the duty payable on iron ore export, specifically regarding the date of the 'Let Export' order and the subsequent imposition of duty on iron ore export. The Revenue argues that duty is payable as the iron ore was loaded after a specific date, while the respondent contests this based on the absence of duty payable on the date of the 'Let Export' order. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) sided with the respondent, emphasizing that once the 'Let Export' order is given, the timing of loading the vessel becomes inconsequential for the refund claim rejection. The appellate tribunal found the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decision to be well-reasoned and denied the stay application, dismissing the need for a stay at that point. Furthermore, both parties requested an out-of-turn hearing, which was granted by the tribunal. The appeal was scheduled for expedited hearing on a specified date, with the respondent given the liberty to submit written arguments as requested by the Senior Counsel. This procedural aspect highlights the efficient handling of the case by the tribunal to ensure timely resolution and fairness in the proceedings.
|
