9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This is a departmental appeal against OIA No. 9/04-Cus., dated 19-10-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Visakhapatnam. 2. The brief facts are as follows : The respondents on conversion of their vessel from foreign to coastal run on 27-10-97 paid customs duty on the ship stores to the tune of Rs. 32,70,350/- vide TR chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appeal of the respondent with consequential relief. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order on the following grounds. (1) The case laws relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) are distinguishable. In the present case, originally the claim was filed with an entirely different formation, Custom House Chennai. Whereas in the cases relied on by the Commissioner, the refund claim was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0) E.L.T. 641 (SC)]. 3. Shri N.P. Jagasia, learned advocate appeared for the respondents and Shri Ganesh Havanur learned SDR for the revenue. 4. We have heard both sides. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has narrated the entire facts of this case to highlight the inept handling of the entire issue by the department. We do not want to repeat the same. However, one thing is clear that the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jurisdiction not being defined for filing such refund claim), the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2003 (162) E.L.T. 258] is inapplicable to the instant case and is distinguishable. In view of the above, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that the refund claim is hit by time bar. In the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
