9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013. The refund was rejected as the imported goods were shown as sold 5 days before on release by the Customs but appellant submitted that the delivery was made as per delivery challan on 29.04.2013 which is after the date of bill of entry - Held that: the appellant has submitted delivery challan and the other evidence along with the terms of agreement which establish that the issue of invoice 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in import and sale of various electronic items. They have refund claim for an amount of ₹ 5.1,50,272/- in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 for additional duty of customs. The Original Authority sanctioned an amount of ₹ 60,166/- and rejected the claim for ₹ 90, 106/-. The main reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween the appellant and the Indian buyer of the imported good, the seller shall raise invoice for the charges once the product is ready to shift from China to India with required customized features (Clause 4.2). Ld. Consultant submitted that the Original Authority erred in holding that that the sale occurred prior to release of the goods by the Customs. There is no bar in issuing an invoice and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the ground that the invoice dated 21.04.2013 is prior to the date of Bill of Entry. The Original Authority recorded that it is doubtful as to whether the same goods were sold, which were imported. On such doubt, the refund was rejected. On the other hand, the appellant submitted delivery challan and the other evidence along with the terms of agreement to establish that the issue of invoice 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
