9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, both are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants filed refund claim of Rs. 5,47,146/- of Additional Customs duty in pursuance of Customs notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.9.2007. It has been alleged that the appellants had failed to fulfill the condition NO. (b) of para 2 of the said notification. The original autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly sanctioned the refund claim. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not dispute any of the evidences. It is his submission that there is no requirement in the notification to mention the particular words in the invoices. 4. Learned D.R. reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that it is well settled that the conditions of the exemption notification are r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le, at the time of importation of the goods; (b) the importer, while issuing the invoice for sale of the said goods, shall specifically indicate in the invoice that in respect of the goods covered therein, no credit of the additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 shall be admissible. 6. It appears that appellants fulfilled the condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that there will be no unjust enrichment as it has been mentioned on the invoices issued by them that additional custom duty shall not be admissible to customers. This fact was not disputed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, there is no justification to deny the refund claim. 8. In view of the above discussion, impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. Orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
