9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off – decided against Revenue. - C/350/05 - A/89210/16/CB - Dated:- 28-7-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commr. (AR) for Appellant Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for Respondent ORDER Revenue filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2005/AP Misc (ACC) dated 18.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original No. S/3-Misc.55/2004 VA ACC dated 17.9.2004 and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent with consequential refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The issue involved in the present case is if the refund filed by the respondent w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that the duty in respect of all the Bills of Entry was paid under protest. Hence, the impugned order is not proper and legal. 4. Shri Anil Balani, learned Advocate for the respondent submits that there is no dispute that whether it is called entry register or protest register, the payment of duty was under protest. It was in the knowledge of the department that the duty was paid under protest and refund cannot be time barred. He further submits that refund arose out of the litigation on classification, which was settled by this Tribunal vide the order No. CI/1464/WZB/2002 dated 18.5.2002. Therefore, for this reason also the refund was filed on 03.02.2003 i.e. within one year of the date of order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bills of Entry and rejected the remaining as time barred. The deptt is required to pass all the refund claim within maximum period of 3 months, board has reiterated these instructions number of time, in spite of all this, it appears that deptt has deliberately delayed the passing of their refund claim, hence appellant is entitled for interest. From the above findings of the impugned order, it is observed that it is not in dispute that irrespective of any type of record in the department, the register by whatever name it is called, the protest was recorded. Therefore, there is no dispute that the duty payment made by the respondent is under protest. Hence, the refund is not time barred. We also observe that refund has arisen consequent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
