9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mrs. Lakshmi Menon, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.C. Khole, Dy. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant M/s. Armstrong World Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the business of importing articles like Mineral Fibre sound absorbing sheets, Gypsum ceiling board, Steel angles, Wooden Parquet Flooring etc. and resale the same in pursuance of exemption special CVD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007. 2. Vide the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 22-7-2011, the refund claim sanctioned to the appellant of the CVD as per Notification No. 102/2007 was disallowed by setting aside the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded following fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BE Office Automation Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 838 (Tri. Mum.), have held - the appellant have submitted that the Chartered Accountant s certificate, the adjudicating authority have failed to examine that the importer has not passed on the burden of duty to their consumer, without examining corroborative evidence. (iv) In respect of eight nos. of ex-bond bills of entry, wherein the address of their Lower Parel office is mentioned with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Kalyan-II Division, and subsequently sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority, it is settled position that the refund/rebate claim should be submitted with the jurisdictional authority as mentioned on the Bill of Entry, which have not been done, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the quantity shown in the Bill of Entries is due to the fact that the sales invoices contain the goods cleared from Customs bonded warehouses, debonding of goods from private bonded warehouses and goods directly from docks i.e. JNPT. 4.08 The Range Officer has also reported that the refund claim is in order and the verification of all the original documents viz. CST/VAT challans, Bill of Entries, TR 6/GAR 7 Challans and Sales invoices has been carried out by them. It is further pointed out that in the Circular No. 6/2008 also, exception have been provided and accordingly the claim was rightly allowed. There have been no findings to the contrary. 3.3 As regards the third objection of the appellant relies on the categorical find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by the importer and they fulfil the requirement of unjust enrichment. Moreover, as prescribed additionally in the said Circular the claimant has filed a self-declaration to the effect that he has not passed on the incidence of 4% CVD to any other person. As such the claimant has complied with directives issued under the Board s letters, dated 28-4-2008 13-10-2008. 3.4 As regards the fourth objection regarding jurisdiction, the appellant states that the issue is no more res integra and have been settled by Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bhubaneswar - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 310 (Tribunal), wherein it has been held that the goods imported herein are cleared for b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
