9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR) for respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.279/2005/MCH dated 15/07/2005 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The appellant herein had filed a refund claim with the lower authorities on the ground that they have not availed the benefit of Notification No.345/86, which provided for concessional rate of duty of 5% on the goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities before the goods were cleared from the docks but in the absence of certificate in hand they paid full duty and they claimed the excess duty paid as refund on the ground that the benefit of notification was always available to them on the strength of certificate issued by DGTD authorities subsequent to clearance. 3. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was paid under protest. For all practical purposes, the appellants have discharged the correct duty liability during the period 1986 to 1993, and refund claim has been filed after a period of six months from the date of payment of duty and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower authorities rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
