9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-AMP-APP-518/15-16 dated 30/11/2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai Zone III, whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original No. DC/AS /1777/ 2013 ACC dated 9/12/2013, rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he refund claim on 11/1/2013 for the amount of Rs. 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, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st oversightly therefore the said amount should be refunded to the appellant. As regard the re-export of the goods he submits that the foreign supplier have confirmed the receipt of the goods and they have also returned the value of the goods, on this basis appellant is claiming that the goods have been re-exported however they do not have any evidence for the same. 4. Shri. D.K. Sinha, Ld. Asstt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early 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 under dispute that the goods in respect of which custom duty and interest was paid has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
