9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mported and subsequently sold. The adjudicating authority has held that they had preferred a refund claim of Rs. 8,08,265/- initially filed on 11.07.2012. The said refund claim was withdrawn vide their letter dated 04.09.2012 citing reason that notification issued by DGFT that no refund may be claimed against Import duty paid by DEPB Licenses after March, 2012, and hence stating they were withdrawing their application and will apply in future if any amendment is issued by DGFT in respect of the said notification. In their reply to show cause notice, they have submitted that they had withdrawn the claim on the request of Customs Officials. However, there in no mention about the same in their letter dated 04.09.2012 and no evidence has been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing a de-novo order." The Commissioner (Appeals) also directed the original adjudicating authority to verify the issue of unjust-enrichment in remand proceedings. Revenue is in appeal before us aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal. 4. Heard both sides. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue draws our attention to the appeal memorandum and the grounds of appeal. He submits that the Respondent had filed refund initially on 11.07.2012 which was subsequently withdrawn by them on their own on 04.09.2012, stating that according to notification issued by DGFT no refund will be claimed against import duty paid by the DEPB Licenses after March 2012. The Respondent filed the refund claim again on 27.05.2013, consequent to the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ects all Chief Commissioners of Customs to ensure that all the pending applications for refund of 4% SAD paid through DEPB/ reward scrips are disposed of by 30.6.2013. He contends that their refund claim was initially filed within the time limit and the same was taken back at the instance of the Customs officers and was subsequently resubmitted as soon as the time limit was extended by the CBEC. Learned Advocate submitted that the relevant date for submission of refund claim should be taken as the initial date of submission of claim i.e. 11.07.2012, which is within the time limit of one year. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi vs. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Limited 2013 (294) ELT 272 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
