2009 (3) TMI 468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the amount due and the vehicle was also released. Remittance made by petitioner or identity of the person who remitted or amount that is due to be refunded to petitioner is not disputed. Only contention against the petitioner is that TR6 Challan he produced was only an attested copy. Held – it is purely a technical contention which cannot be accepted. Petitioner complied with requirement under C.B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly on the production of TR 6 Challan, the aforesaid vehicle was also got registered. 3. Against the adjudication order referred to above, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by Exhibit P3 order, reduced the duty, fine and penalty. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a refund application. However that was not entertained on the ground that the petitioner had not prod .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntention and cannot be accepted. 6. This is all the more so for the reason that counsel for the petitioner made available before me copy of clarification order issued by the Government of India, vide F.No. 275/37/2K-CX. 8A, dated 2-1-2002. In the said clarification, it is stated that a simple letter from the person who made the deposit, requesting for return of the amount, along with the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X