9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is evident from the fact of this case that the subject goods were not cleared by the Department for home consumption. Hence, the duty paid on such goods should be eligible for refund under Section 27 ibid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/50330/2016-EX[SM] - A/56527/2016-SM[BR] - Dated:- 9-9-2016 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant: Shri. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... home consumption, the appellant sent back the same to the Overseas Seller with the permission of the Customs Authorities. Thereafter, the Appellant had filed the refund application, claiming refund of ₹ 27,64,468/- under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant for rejection of the refund application under Third Proviso to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 27 ibid or not. In this context, the ld. Advocate has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. BPL Ltd. 2002 (145) E.L.T. 634 (Tri. Bang.) and BASF India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva 2006 (204) E.LT. 474 (Tri. Mumbai). 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterated the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should only have confined his findings to the facts of eligibility of the refund claim under the said statutory provisions. Therefore, rejection of refund application under the Third Proviso to Section 26 A ibid is not in conformity with the statute inasmuch as, the said Section deals with the situation, which is entirely different form the present facts of the case as to whether, the appellant wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
