9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR) PER : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their claim for refund of the excess duty paid by them on the pilfered goods was rejected by both the lower authorities. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported a consignment consisted of 200 drums of 50 Kg. each of Crude Iodine on 21.03.2006 by filing a Bill of Entry. The Bill of Entry was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962. Both the lower authorities rejected their refund claim by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries v. Commissioner of Customs - 2004 (172) ELT 145 and held that as the appellant had not got the Bill of Entry re-assessed therefore, they are not entitled for the refund claim. Aggrieved by the order the appellant is before me. 3. Heard b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case that whether pilferage was found before out of charge was given or after out of charge was given. Therefore, the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority. 6. Considered the submissions and perused the records. 7. On perusal of the records, I find that in the Bill of Entry it is mentioned that out of charge was given on 28.04.2006. The same cannot be disputed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
