9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (T)]. The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/94/CKP/2003, dated 16-9-2003 by M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata. The issue in the present appeal relates to the admissibility of the Refund Claim filed by the appellant company. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported mechanical spares presented Bill of Entry dated 26-7-2000 and pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund of duty paid on the importation of the goods would be governed by the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. He also held that the appellant company was statutorily required to apply for duty drawback. Having not done so, the appellant company cannot seek relief under Section 27 of the Central Excise Act, and as such, the appeal filed by the appellants was rejected by the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants have preferred the refund claim on that basis, inasmuch as the goods were not re-exported by them, but were sent back by the Customs Authorities. 3. Learned Consultant, Shri Chattopadhyay submitted a copy of the CEGAT s decision in the case of Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, BBSR-I reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 300 (Tri. - Kolkata). 4. Shri A.K. Mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
