9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly shows that irrespective of the position of re-export the fact is not under dispute that the goods in respect of which custom duty and interest was paid has not been delivered to the appellant. If the bill of entry has been filed and the custom duty has been paid then custom department should deliver the goods to the importer and in such case no refund shall arise. However in the present case, it has been informed by the assessment group of Customs that no out of charge was given to the said bill of entry and it also informed that no re-export permission was given to the importer, therefore either delivery of the goods should be given to the appellant and if department is failed to give delivery of the goods by not giving out of charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of ₹ 1,00,275+ interest of ₹ 83,448/-) the appellant paid the same by mistake and oversight through online payment on 3/1/2013 vide ICEGATE reference No. IG03011312629339038 and internet transaction No. CK23813289. Realizing their mistake, the appellant filed the refund claim on 11/1/2013 for the amount of ₹ 1,83,723/-. By deficiency memo the appellant was asked to submit all the import and export documents. Appellant vide their letter dated 29/3/2013 conveyed to the custom authority that the original copy of duplicate Bill of Entry NO. 1599950 dated 13/6/2007 was not available with them as no physical delivery of the goods were made to them by ACC, Sahar at any point of time commencing from filing of Bill of Entry til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ightly rejected the claim, hence order does not require any interference, appeal may be dismissed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record 6. Refund claim of the appellant is filed in respect of the custom duty and interest paid towards bill of entry which was showing pending since 2007. Though no evidence was produced regarding the export of the goods but at the same time it is clearly observed by the lower authority in the impugned order the goods have not been delivered to the appellant i.e. after payment of duty in 2003 against bill of entry 159950 dated 13/6/2007, out of charge order was not given. This clearly shows that irrespective of the position of re-export the fact is not un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
