9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank guarantee, which was not against any confirmed demand was not justified. Further such Enchashem by the Revenue was on account of non-fulfillment of export obligation. The export obligation having been subsequently fulfilled, the refund of amount so encashed is available to the assessee and the same is not subject to the provisions of limitation under section 27 of the Customs Act. The Revenue has not shown any decision to the contrary. As such in terms of the declaration of law by the Tribunal, Revenue’s contention is not justified. Their appeal is accordingly rejected. - C/603/2008 - 56016/2013(PB) - Dated:- 11-4-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. N. Pathak, DR For the Respondent: Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued D/D Nos. 925311 dated 07.09.1999 for Rs. 165459/- and 682188 dated 14.5.2001 for Rs. 843697/- in favour of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, which were deposited in Govt. account vide TR-6 Challan Nos. 25119917408 dated 25.11.99 and 21050103447 dated 21.05.01 respectively. 3. The assessee (Appellant) filed refund claims with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Refund on 05.1.2007 amounting to Rs. 165459/- and Rs. 843697/- on 24.5.2007 on the ground that the Appellant have already completed the export obligations against its aforesaid advance licences and all relevant documents inclusive EODC submitted with Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Refund. 3. The refund claims filed by the Appellant were rejected by the Refund sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but discharged certificate delayed and bank guarantee enforced in the meantime-Encashemnet of bank guarantee by Department on non-fulfillment of export obligation, not amounting to payment of duty-Refund of amount so encashed not subject to provisions of limitation under section 27 of Customs act 1962. In the present case no demand was confirmed against the appellant. Further the Appellant had obtained discharge certificate from the DGFT. From the above it is clear that both the impugned orders Nos. 74/07 dated 29.6.07 and 83/2007 dated 10.9.07 of refund claim of Rs. 1,65,459/- and 8,43,697/- respectively passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) Export, New Custom House, New Delhi are not fair, correct, legal and based o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
