9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that the importer has not claimed the refund of Additional Duty of Customs. The appellant contention is that the period of import is from January to March, 2007 whereas Notification No. 102/2007-Customs was issued on 14-9-2007 the said notification is prospective in nature and would not be applicable to the period prior to the same. This stands clarified by the Board vide their Circular No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. - E/1253/2011-EX(SM) - Final Order No. A/51313/2014-SM(BR) - Dated:- 26-3-2014 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) Shri O.P. Agarwal, CA, for the Appellant. Shri B.B. Sharma, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of S.S. Billets and Flats, falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period of February, 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional duty of customs on the ground that importer sold the goods instead of using and also charged Central Sales Tax @ 4% therefore benefit of exemption Notification 102/2007-Cus. was available to them and further they did not given any remark on the invoices that they did not claim the refund of Additional duty of customs. I observe that appellant did not contend this ground and also there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me subject to fulfilment of prescribed condition. Apart from the fact that the notification was not in existence on the relevant point of time I also find that the said notification was allowing refund of CVD, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. One of the condition was that the sale invoices would bear an endorsement that the same are not cenvatable. There is no such endorsement on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
