9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : SK. Mohanty Brief Facts for the case are that the appellant had filed the Bill of entry No.7236483 dated 28.06.2012 for home consumption of the imported goods. The Additional Commissioner of Customs vide Order No A.O No.441/2012 dated 30.10.2012, partially allowed clearance of goods (i.e. non food items) having assessable value of Rs. 6,54,432/- and rejected clearance of rest of goods (i.e. fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected on the ground that as per the proviso (3) to Section 26A ibid, no refund of custom duty on the imported goods shall be granted in case an offence has been committed at the time of import. In appeal the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order 17.04.2015 has upheld the original order. Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. Advocate appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 27,64,468/- was paid by the appellant at the time of filing of the Bill of Entry on 11.07.2012 and thereafter, the Bill of Entry in question was assessed by the Department. Since the NOC was not obtained from FSSI, the Department did not allow clearance of the food products and the same were returned by the appellant to the Overseas Supplier. Thus, it is evident from the fact of this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me consumption, this Tribunal in the case of BASF India Ltd.(supra) has held that in case the goods were not cleared for home consumption and re-exported by the importer, refund claim of duty on such goods cannot be denied. 6. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, after setting aside the same, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
