9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07, appellant is eligible for refund of SAD paid on imports subject to the fulfillment of conditions specified in the notification. The claims have been rejected on various grounds. 3. Heard both sides. Each ground is taken up separately and discussed below: 3.1. Refund claim in respect of 4 bills of entry have been rejected on the ground that the refund claims were filed after expiry of one year from the date of payment of duty. It was submitted by the learned consultant on behalf of the appellants that the limitation of one year for the purpose of filing refund claim was introduced by amending the notification by issuing of Notification No. 93/2008 dated 01.08.2008 and the claims which have been rejected on the ground of limitation rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they had not taken CENVAT credit. Further he also submitted that ceramic tiles sold by them are basically consumer items and therefore CENVAT credit is invariably not admissible and further they had not sold the same to any manufacturer also. Further he also relies upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai [2013 (292) E.L.T. 252 (Tri.-Mum.)] and R.K.G International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [2013 (290) E.L.T. 253 (Tri.-Del.)] to submit that even when there was no such declaration, the Tribunal took the view that in the circumstances which have been mentioned by the learned consultant, the SAD refund could not have been rejected. In the absence of any contrary decision produced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve gone through the certificate issued by the VAT authorities and I find that this gives the correlation between the bills of entry and the VAT paid. Moreover I also find that this cannot be one of the requirements as per the notification in the absence of specific requirement in the notification. Therefore this ground also cannot be sustained for rejection of refund claim. 3.5 In only one case, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that original TR-6 challan was not filed. He submits that they had filed a bond with copy of the challan and in my opinion this would be sufficient. 4. The discussion above would show that all the grounds based on which refund claims have been rejected cannot be sustained. Accordingly all the appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
