9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt refund with interest as per Rules within four weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/218/11 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2014 - Shri Anil Choudhary,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri D. H. Nadkarni, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M. S. Reddy, Dy. Commissioner (A.R.) ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: The present appeal is preferred by the importer M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No. 42(CRC-I)/2011 (JNCH)/IMP-28 dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai-II. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported a New Yeast Wrapping Machine Model 682-KL and filed the Bill of Entry No. 669289 dated 19.02.2001 for home c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim application vide letter dated 19.04.2009 which was received by office of the Customs Authority on 05.05.2009, deficiency memo was issued dated 26.05.2009 wherein para 3 of the deficiency memo, the appellant was asked to submit re-assessed Bills of Entry from concerned appraising Group. The appellant further requested for re-assessment, which was done on 30.10.2009 by the Customs Authority and thereafter vide Order-in-Original dated 06.01.2010 refund was allowed to the appellant. As regards limitation it was categorically decided in the favour of the appellant at para 8 of the Order-in-Original which is reproduced below:- 8. It is noticed that the Importer filed the refund claim application vide their letter dated 19.04.2009 which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the limitation has been prescribed for consequential refund also and the person claiming consequential relief has to file the application for refund within the prescribed period. The period of limitation is six months/one year as the case may, be shall be calculated from the date of Order-in-Appeal giving rise to refund and not from the date of re-assessment made in compliance of order. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that impugned order is erroneous, as it is further quoted in Section 27 (1B) (c) that where any duty is paid provisionally under section 18, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof, or in case of re-assessment, from the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
