9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agdev, JDR for the Appellants Shri J.M. Sharma, Consultant for the Respondent Per Archana Wadhwa : Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri R. Jagdev, learned SDR for the Revenue and Shri J. M. Sharma, learned Consultant for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant had imported goods under the cover of Bill of Entry, as detailed in the impugned ordere and paid the 4% Additional Duty of Customs leviable under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Government has exempted the goods falling within the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), from the whole of the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1934 dated 14.11.2007 for Rs.7,80,617/- as a document evidencing the payment of said Special duty of Customs and therefore fully complied the conditions laid under the exemption notification 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007. That have also contended that they have also fully complied with the provisions of Para 5 [(5.1) to (5.3)] of the CBEC Circular No. 6/2008 dated 28.4.2008, by filing all the documents required therein. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) held as under : "7.3 It is observed that the only observation by the adjudicating authority, for rejecting the refund claim, is that the appellant were required to submit the Bill of Entry in original i.e. either triplicate copy or any other copy as per the condition laid down under Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is not the condition prescribed vide the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007'. 6. The revenue's only grievance is that the refund stand sanctioned without producing the original copy of bill of entry. However, the Revenue is not contesting the refund on merits. The appellate authority has discussed in details that there is no requirement of original bill of entry in terms of notification. Even otherwise, it is not in dispute that the appellants have paid the dues and the technical ground of non production of original copy of bill of entry cannot be made a basis for denial of the benefit of notification. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals). The revenues, appeal is accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
