9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 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 findings after considering the submissions made by the appellant :- (i) The importer, while issuing the invoice for sales of the imported goods was required to indicate in the invoice 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". In the Order-in-Original the lower authority has clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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, in accordance with law. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant have made the following submissions :- 3.1 As regards the first objection of the Commissioner (Appeals), the order is vitiated as the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not taking notice of the categorical findings mentioned in para 4.05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 findings recorded in para 4.04 & 4.06 of the Order-in-Original which are reproduced below :- "4.04 The certificate of the Chartered Accountants, M/s Suber Bohari & Associates, certifies that M/s Armstrong World Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., have paid Customs duty including SAD on the goods cleared u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 being warehoused on an 'into bond Bill of Entry' and not 'Home Consumption Bill of Entry' at the Customs House of origin, and in bond manufacture of the export product takes place at appellant's Export Oriented Unit which is licensed under Section 58 as a private bonded warehouse from where ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
