9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on record, including the counter affidavit filed by respondents. 3. The issue, which falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount, claimed by them, in cash, as the reward scheme scrips has been withdrawn. 4. The petitioner filed Bills of Entry for import of the products, viz., Panasonic Facsimile Machines, and filed five Bills of Entry, and paid 4% additional duty of Rs. 8,59,470.92/-, by availing the benefit of the Notification No.102 of 2007 Customs, dated 14.09.2007. The goods were cleared, and subsequently, on 13.01.2010, the petitioner filed five applications before the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), claiming refund of additional dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain to Bills of Entry, dated 11.12.2008 and 21.11.2008, the same were rejected as time barred. 7. Against the aforesaid order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the first respondent/Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). In the memorandum of grounds of Appeal, it is specifically contended by the petitioner that they had not availed the benefit of the notification No.C.N.41 of 2005, which allow the importers to avail the drawback or CENVAT Credit of additional duty, leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, as they are only the trader of the goods. Further, it was stated that the applications for refund in respect of three Bills of Entry, dated 06.03.2009, 11.02.2009 and 07.01.2009 are well wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of this Court passed in W.P.No.17012 of 2001, dated 03.08.2010, it was pointed out that the said case is distinguishable. 10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though notification No.41 of 2005 contains a clause, stating that the importer shall be entitled to avail of the drawback, or CENVAT Credit of additional duty, leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act as against the amount debited in the said certificate, the petitioner, as a matter of fact, has not availed any drawback or CENVAT Credit, as they are not manufacturers, but only traders. That apart, the petitioner pointed out that the Board has issued another circular, vide Notification No.102 of 2007, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity to place all contentions before the second respondent, viz., the Original Authority, with regard to three Bills of Entry, dated 06.03.2009, 11.02.2009 and 07.01.2009, for which, refund applications were filed on 13.01.2010. Insofar as other two applications in respect of Bills of Entry, dated 11.12.2008 and 21.11.2008 are concerned, which were rejected as time barred, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not pressing the same. This submission is placed on record. 14. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned orders are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration, who shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
