9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Order-in-Appeal No. 275/MCH/AC/CRARS/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai-I. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant filed a refund claim in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 02.07.2010 within one year at ICD Dadri instead of CFS Mulund. However, the Customs authority of ICD Dadri forwarded refund application to CFS Mulund, the refund claim was reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the facts and the issue is similar to the order cited by the Ld. Counsel. The Tribunal in the said order dt. 31.10.2014 in the appellant's own case held as follows: "6. I have carefully gone through the submissions made by both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue came up before the Gujarat High Court relating to Notification no. 41/2007-ST wherein also the requirement of filing refund before the jurisdictional Customs officer was stipulated. Hon'ble High Court considered the following question of law. "A. Whether period of limitation can be excluded if previously rebate claim application is filed before an authority not competent to sanction refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
