9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is sufficient proof that duty was paid under protest and accordingly appellant is entitled for refund of duty and there is no question of time-bar involved – In this view of matter appeal allowed with consequential relief – Decided in favour of Assesse. - Appeal No. C/391/2010 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2014 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri Z B Nagarkar, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri Senthil Nathan, Dy Commissioner (AR) ORDER This appeal by the assessee is against Order-in-Appeal No: 33/Mumbai-III/2010 dated 17/03/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - III. 2. The appellant, M/s. Mohit World, is an importer and had imported consignment of mobile accessories vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort) who reviewed the order granting refund under Section 129D(2) and consequently Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellant also filed cross-objections in the said appeal. One of the grounds of Revenue was that the refund claim was not submitted on 15/06/2006 to which the Commissioner (Appeals) directed for verification of the facts from the Refund Section. Pursuant to inspection no such proof was available on record but it was held that no refund application was filed on 15/06/2006 . Further, as regards whether the refund was time bared, taking notice of the contention of the assessee that where duty is paid in excess or paid in such case, where the matter gone into the ligitation and is finally sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that:- The only mistake the appellants have done is that they had not paid under protest even when there was a dispute regarding assessment itself. Since the assessment itself was challenged and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Om Textile Private Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur, Navi Mumbai reported in 2006 (74) RLT 233 (Bom) we feel that limitation under Section 11B is not applicable and accordingly the refund claim has to be allowed. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel that it is an admitted fact that the refund claim was filed on 15/06/2006 cannot be faulted and even the Revenue was not able to produce any other date of filing, the reason to hold contrary has got no logic to stand. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
