9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities had relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of CCE Vs. M/s. Flock India Pvt. Ltd. (2000 (8) TMI 88 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. CC (Preventive) (2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India 2015 (8) TMI 673 - SUPREME COURT dismissed the civil appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s order on the identical issue where the Tribunal by relying M/s. Priya Blue Industries case (supra) rejected the appeal on identical issue, where the Airport Authority of India has not challenged the assessment order and claimed refund. The ratio of the above Apex Court decision in the case of Airport Authority of India (supra) squ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE Vs. M/s. Flock India Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (120) ELT 285 (S.C.) and M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. CC (Preventive) - 2004 (172) ELT 145) (S.C.). 3. Heard both sides. The Ld. Advocate reiterated the grounds of appeal and referred the Board s letter dated 14.01.2005 annexed at page 23 and their representation to the Board annexed at page 20 and also Board s Circular dated 01/2005 dated 11.01.2005 (Sl. No. 9), he submits that as per the CBEC Circular the registration of vehicles is mandatory requirement before export as per the laws of the exporting country and that should not disentitle the benefit. He relies on the invoices, airway bill and the registration of the car Mercedes-Benz Mayfair, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. AR and submits that Airport Authority of India Vs. CC, Chennai (supra) relied on by the Revenue is not applicable to the present case. In that case, the Airport Authority of India has not fulfilled the conditions but in their case, they have fulfilled the conditions. 6. After hearing both sides, we find that the limited issue involved in this appeal is rejection of refund claim on the vehicle imported and cleared by the appellant on payment of merit of rate of duty. On perusal of OIO and also the impugned order, we find that the refund claim was rejected by both the authorities on the ground of non-challenging of assessment order. The appellant filed Bill of Entry on 20.05.2004 for clearance of imported car and the same was asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
