9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndition that importer produces a certificate issued by the Industrial Advisor in the office of the DGTD, GOI. It is undisputed case in hand, the said exemption certificate was produced on 15/07/1993 while the goods were cleared from the docks during the period 04/07/86 to 18/05/1993. Since the basic condition of the notification required the importer to produce the certificate at the time of clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Sunny Shah, Advocate for appellant Shri. DK Sinha, Asst. Comm. (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 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued by the DGTD officers. We find that the appellants claim that they had applied for the said certificate with the authorities 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly rejected on the ground of limitation and it is also on record that the goods were not assessed provisionally nor duty 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
