9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of appellant and held that appellant had to only discharge the differential Customs duty along with interest and composition fees, which enables them to get the export obligation discharged certificate, which would mean that the consignment imported duty free are consumed by the appellant for export of the goods as agreed upon by them when they procured advance licence - averment of the appellant that they have completed the export completion is not contested by the Revenue. The appellant was well within his legal rights to claim the refund of the amount encashed by the Revenue invoking the Bank Guarantee. An application filed by the appellant on 13.10.2001 was correct application which remained unprocessed by the Revenue till 11.05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to accept the request regarding clubbing of two licences and after the same was accepted the Jt. DGFT, Hyderabad issued an EODC in respect of the Adv. Licences under consideration. Thereafter the appellant made a request for refund of the encashed Bank Guarantee amount which was rejected by the L.A. vide order No. s/10-99/2004 Sr. No. 51 dated 06.10.2004 on the ground that the appellants had not filed a refund application in prescribed format and that the request for refund was also time barred as per provision of Section 27(1) of C.A., 1962. In the appeal made against the said Order-in-Original erstwhile Commissioner of Custom (Appeals) vide his order No. 59/2005 MCH dated 17.01.2005 set aside the order of the L.A. and directed the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of licences with direction to pay the composition fees for unfulfilled export obligation and differential Customs duty which was complied by the appellant. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority allowed refund of the amount of Bank Guarantee which was encashed but rejected the claim of interest. The appellant again on 19.05.2005 made an application for seeking interest on delayed sanction of the refund claim which was rejected by Order-in-Original dated 29.07.2005. The impugned order is passed in an appeal against the said Order-in-Original dated 29.07.2005. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I [2006 (196) ELT 257 (S.C.)] for the proposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment which amounts to holding back of an amount for which department had no legal sanction and can be termed as an amount retained by the department without authority of law. 6.2 Secondly, the office of the Jt. DGFT have subsequently accepted the contention of appellant and held that appellant had to only discharge the differential Customs duty along with interest and composition fees, which enables them to get the export obligation discharged certificate, which would mean that the consignment imported duty free are consumed by the appellant for export of the goods as agreed upon by them when they procured advance licence. 6.3 Thirdly, averment of the appellant that they have completed the export completion is not contested by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
