9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants imported a consignment of LMS Scrap and filed Bill of Entry No. 414327 dated 16-3-2005. They deposited a sum of Rs. 5,31,744/- against the said Bill of Entry vide TR-6 Challan dated 17-3-05. Subsequently, the Appellant abandoned the goods under Section 23(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 by their letter dated 1-4-2005 contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 66) E.L.T. 204 (Tribunal). He further submits that the Commissioner of Customs already decided the matter in favour of the Appellant and, therefore, they are entitled to get the refund of the amount deposited against the Bill of Entry. 3. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Appellant had not filed the refund claim along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall remit the duty on such goods. On a query of the Bench, the ld. Advocate submits that the application under Section 23(2) of the Act is still pending. In my view, the refund claim cannot be decided till the decision of the application under Section 23(2) of the Act. It is noted that the Appellant claimed refund of the duty against the imported goods, where they have relinquished their title. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
